Some thoughts about educational costs, reform and economics

I have written in earlier posts about the need to change and reform the existing educational system, with its general structure and requirements dating back to the last couple of centuries. With the passage of time, students and learners can generally understand and acquire past, recent, advanced knowledge at a younger and earlier age.

It would be beneficial and advisable to give young learners more possibilities, and allow them to begin their college/university and higher formal education at a younger or lower age.

New, alternative methods of education include academic and education acceleration, skipping grades, homeschooling, online education, e-learning, etc, and possible adequate or coherent combinations of these methods.

A detailed study or analysis of the consequences of such changes or educational reforms on a large scale could be undertaken from a financial perspective or in relation to the economics of education. I will try to provide a short or practical analysis, and provide some considerations on the possible implementation of these changes.

In countries such as Germany and France, institutions of higher education or universities can be public or private. In public universities tuition costs and fees are very low or minimal, they mostly include yearly enrollment fees. In France for example these minimal fees are usually applied in public universities to all students, including international students and students of all countries, who can benefit from the low costs of education.

Many countries or nations on a larger international scale involving all continents could negotiate and agree to implement a reformed educational system where young learners or students are given the opportunity to finish their secondary education and get into the university at a younger age, thus being able to finish their university studies before the end of their teenage years. For example, a young, perceptive, fast learner could undergo or follow an accelerated educational method, process or system (with or without homeschooling), and be able to enter the university at the age of 11 or 12, then finish his or her studies with a master’s degree or a PhD at about the age of 16, 17 or 19.
An additional useful change would be to accompany this educational acceleration with a tuition system similar to the one found in public universities in countries like Germany or France, where students pay low or minimal tuition fees.

As a general remark, students or learners who are able or who are given the possibility to finish their university studies in their teens, instead of having to wait until their twenties or thirties to finish these studies and obtain the same diploma, will have saved considerable time, expenses and costs for themselves and for the community, society or country where they live. Such a refined and reformed education system would help reduce educational costs, and reduce costs, expenditures and fees in relation to the allocation of educational resources, and the allocation and use of facilities and buildings for educational purposes.

Considering for example the case of the educational system in the USA and the related student debt issues, implememting such educational changes and reforms would represent an effective solution to the student debt and student loan problems. Thus students would be able to finish their college and university studies at a younger age, with very insignificant debt or debt-free. Within this new or reformed educational framework, a young person who drops out or leaves the university and the formal education system as a teenager at about the age of 16 or 17 will be able to leave after having obtained and finished a university degree such as an engineering degree, or a master’s or a PhD degree, instead of leaving with only high school qualifications or a high school degree.

An idea I alluded to before is that the changes, progress and advances in knowledge, information and scientific theories should be constantly and regularly accompanied by reassessing, re-evaluating and changing the education system and the methods through which these theories and information are presented, transmitted or taught. I think the considerations or suggestions I presented here represent a significant step in the right direction to implement the suitable reformed, inclusive, affordable, effective and efficient educational system of the future.

The difference between quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, some basic explanations

Let’s start with some historical notes and considerations.

Quantum mechanics as a theory was gradually created and formulated during the first two decades of the 20th century. Important milestones include the 1900 quantum hypothesis by Planck that any energy-radiating atomic system can theoretically be divided into a number of discrete “energy elements” such that each of these elements is proportional to the frequency ν with which each of them individually radiate energy, and then the interpretation of the photoelectric effect.

The origins of quantum field theory date to the 1920s and to the problem of creating a quantum theory of the electromagnetic field.
The first coherent and acceptable theory of quantum electrodynamics, which included the electromagnetic field and electrically charged matter as quantum mechanical objects, was created by Paul Dirac in 1927.

A further development for quantum field theory (or QFT) came with the discovery of the Dirac equation, which was originally formulated and interpreted as a single-particle equation similar to the Schrodinger equation, but the Dirac equation additionally satisfies both the Lorentz invariance, i.e. the requirements of special relativity, and the rules of quantum mechanics.

Theoretical formulations and advances took place during the 1940s and 1950s, resulting the introduction of renormalized quantum electrodynamics (or QED).

Quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the theory of the strong interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, was formulated diring the 1960s.

In the 1960s and 1970s it was shown that the weak nuclear force and quantum electrodynamics could be merged into a single electroweak interaction.

The Standard Model of particle physics, the theory describing three of the four known fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions – excluding gravity) in the universe and classifying all known elementary particles, is a paradigm of a quantum field theory for theorists, exhibiting a wide range of physical phenomena.

Quantum field theory is a quantum mechanical theory. In this theory, fields with quantized normal modes of oscillation represent particles. So particles are regarded as excitations of quantum fields filling all of space. Relativistic theories of quantized fields depict the interactions between elementary particles.

In general, quantum field theory is a theoretical framework combining classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. It is used to build physical models of subatomic particles (in relation to particle physics) and quasi-particles (in relation to condensed matter physics).

Below is a helpful description and explanation of quantum field theory, taken from the book A Modern Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, by Michele Maggiore:

“Quantum field theory is a synthesis of quantum mechanics and special relativity, and it is one of the great achievements of modern physics. Quantum mechanics, as formulated by Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Pauli, Dirac, and many others, is an intrinsically non-relativistic theory. To make it consistent with special relativity, the real problem is not to find a relativistic generalization of the Schrodinger equation. Actually, Schrodinger first found a relativistic equation, that today we call the Klein–Gordon equation. He then discarded it because it gave the wrong fine structure for the hydrogen atom, and he retained only the non-relativistic limit. Wave equations, relativistic or not, cannot account for processes in which the number and the type of particles changes, as in almost all reactions of nuclear and particle physics.[…] Furthermore, relativistic wave equations suffer from a number of pathologies, like negative-energy solutions.

A proper resolution of these difficulties implies a change of viewpoint, from wave equations, where one quantizes a single particle in an external classical potential, to quantum field theory, where one identifies the particles with the modes of a field, and quantizes the field itself. The procedure also goes under the name of second quantization.

The methods of quantum field theory (QFT) have great generality and flexibility and are not restricted to the domain of particle physics. In a sense, field theory is a universal language, and it permeates many branches of modern research. In general, field theory is the correct language whenever we face collective phenomena, involving a large number of degrees of freedom, and this is the underlying reason for its unifying power. For example, in condensed matter the excitations in a solid are quanta of fields, and can be studied with field theoretical methods. An especially interesting example of the unifying power of QFT is given by the phenomenon of superconductivity which, expressed in the field theory language, turns out to be conceptually the same as the Higgs mechanism in particle physics. As another example we can mention that the Feynman path integral, which is a basic tool of modern quantum field theory, provides a formal analogy between field theory and statistical mechanics, which has stimulated very important exchanges between these two areas.”

For additional info and details about these topics, the following links can be viewed or consulted:

Differences between principles of QM and QFT

What is the difference between QM and non-relativistic QFT

Formalism of Quantum Field Theory vs Quantum Mechanics

Quantizing gravity, or “gravitizing” quantum theory?

Roger Penrose shows in his writings that he is more favorable to the theory of general relativity and to determinism in physics, and that he is more critical towards quantum mechanics, its description of reality, and its probabilistic formulation. Other physicists or scientists have somewhat similar or comparable views or opinions.

Many physicists seem to be trying to formulate a theory of quantum gravity. But there is a different or opposite approach highlighted by some insightful remarks by Penrose.

In a 2013 paper entitled “On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction”, Penrose wrote:

” This paper argues that the case for “gravitizing” quantum theory is at least as strong as that for quantizing gravity.Accordingly, the principles of general relativity must influence, and actually change, the very formalism of quantum mechanics. Most particularly, an“Einsteinian”,rather than a“Newtonian” treatment of the gravitational field should be adopted, in a quantum system,in order that the principle of equivalence be fully respected. This leads to an expectation that quantum superpositions of states involving a significant mass displacement should have a finite lifetime[…]”

Penrose continues:

” The title of this article contains the phrase “gravitization of quantum Mechanics” in contrast to the more usual “quantization of gravity”. This reversal of wording is deliberate, of course, indicating my concern with the bringing of quantum theory more in line with the principles of Einstein’s general relativity, rather than attempting to make Einstein’s theory—or any more amenable theory of gravity—into line with those of quantum mechanics (or quantum field theory).[…]

I think that people tend to regard the great twentieth century revolution of quantum theory, as a more fundamental scheme of things than gravitational theory. Indeed, quantum mechanics, strange as its basic principles seem to be, has no evidence against it from accepted experiment or observation, and people tend to argue that this theory is so well established now that one must try to bring the whole of physics within its compass.Yet, that other great twentieth century revolution, namely the general theory of relativity,is also a fundamental scheme of things which, strange as its basic principles seem to be, also has no confirmed experiments or observations that tell against it[…]”

Penrose thinks that it is essentially quantum mechanics that ought to be changed, not general relativity. In his book The Road to Reality, Penrose states:

” My own viewpoint is that the question of ‘reality’ must be addressed in quantum mechanics—especially if one takes the view (as many physicists appear to) that the quantum formalism applies universally to the whole of physics—for then, if there is no quantum reality, there can be no reality at any level (all levels being quantum levels, on this view). To me, it makes no sense to deny reality altogether in this way. We need a notion of physical reality, even if only a provisional or approximate one, for without it our objective universe, and thence the whole of science, simply evaporates before our contemplative gaze![…]

We must think of a wavefunction as one entire thing. If it causes a spot to appear at one place, then it has done its job, and this apparent act of creation forbids it from causing a spot to appear somewhere else as well. Wavefunctions are quite unlike the waves of classical physics in this important respect. The different parts of the wave cannot be thought of as local disturbances, each carrying on independently of what is happening in a remote region. Wavefunctions have a strongly non-local character; in this sense they are completely holistic entities.

[…]there are powerful positive reasons […] to believe that the laws of present-day quantum mechanics are in need of a fundamental (though presumably subtle) change. These reasons come from within accepted physical principles and from observed facts about the universe. Yet, I find it remarkable how few of today’s quantum physicists are prepared to entertain seriously the idea of an actual change in the ground rules of their subject. Quantum mechanics, despite its extraordinary exception-free experimental support and strikingly confirmed predictions, is a comparatively young subject, being only about three-quarters of a century old (dating this from the establishment of the mathematical theory by Dirac and others, based on the schemes of Heisenberg and Schrodinger, in the years immediately following 1925). When I say ‘comparatively’, I am comparing the theory with that of Newton, which lasted for nearly three times as long before it needed serious modification in the form of special and then general relativity, and quantum mechanics. […]

Moreover, Newton’s theory did not have a measurement paradox.[…]

Newton’s gravitational theory has the particular mathematical elegance that the gravitational forces always add up in a completely linear fashion; yet this is supplanted, in Einstein’s more precise theory, by a distinctly subtle type of non-linearity in the way that gravitational effects of different bodies combine together. And Einstein’s theory is certainly not short on elegance—of a quite different kind from that of Newton.[…]

Einstein’s theory […] involved a completely radical change in perspective. This, it seems to me, is the general kind of change in the structure of quantum mechanics that we must look towards, if we are to obtain the (in my view) needed non-linear theory to replace the present-day conventional quantum theory. Indeed, it is my own perspective that Einstein’s general relativity will itself supply some necessary clues as to the modifications that are required. The 20th century gave us two fundamental revolutions in physical thought— and, to my way of thinking, general relativity has provided as impressive a revolution as has quantum theory (or quantum Field theory). Yet, these two great schemes for the world are based upon principles that lie most uncomfortably with each other. The usual perspective, with regard to the proposed marriage between these theories, is that one of them, namely general relativity, must submit itself to the will of the other. There appears to be the common view that the rules of quantum Field theory are immutable, and it is Einstein’s theory that must bend itself appropriately to fit into the standard quantum mould. Few would suggest that the quantum rules must themselves admit to modification, in order to ensure an appropriately harmonious marriage. Indeed, the very name ‘quantum gravity’, that is normally assigned to the proposed union, carries the implicit connotation that it is a standard quantum (field) theory that is sought. Yet, I would claim that there is observational evidence that Nature’s view of this union is very different from this! I contend that her design for this union must be what, in our eyes, would be a distinctly non-standard one, and that an objective state reduction must be one of its important features.”

While recognizing the experimental verifications and successes of quantum physics, Penrose uses the word faith in relation to quantum mechanics, and thinks there are limitations to that “faith”.

The following quoted lines are taken from the book Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe by Penrose:

” Quantum theory explains the phenomenon of chemical bonding, the colours and physical properties of metals and other substances, the detailed nature of the discrete frequencies of light that particular elements and their compounds emit when heated (spectral lines), the stability of atoms (where classical theory would predict a catastrophic collapse with the emission of radiation as electrons spiral rapidly into their atomic nuclei), superconductors, superfluids, Bose–Einstein condensates […]

When we combine quantum theory with special relativity we get quantum field theory, which is essential for, in particular, modern particle physics.[…]

Quantum theory is commonly regarded as a deeper theory than the classical scheme of particles and forces that had preceded it.[…]

The dogma of quantum mechanics is thus seen to be very well founded indeed, as it rests on an enormous amount of extremely hard evidence. With systems that are simple enough that detailed calculation can be carried out and sufficiently accurate experiments performed, we find an almost incredible precision in the agreement between the theoretical and observational results that are obtained.[…]

Perhaps the multitude of theoreticians involved in the formulation of quantum mechanics is a manifestation of the totally non-intuitive nature of that theory. Yet, as a mathematical structure, there is a remarkable elegance; and the deep coherence between the mathematics and physical behaviour is often as stunning as it is unexpected.[…]

Quantum mechanics provides, indeed, an overarching framework that would appear to apply to any physical process, at no matter what scale. There is perhaps no puzzle, therefore, in the fact that a profound faith has arisen among physicists, that all the phenomena of nature must adhere to it.[…]”

Penrose also mentions and criticizes the Copenhagen interpretation or view:

“According to standard quantum mechanics, the information in the quantum state of a system – or the wave function ψ – is what is needed for probabilistic predictions to be made for the results of experiments that might be performed upon that system.[…]

[According to the Copenhagen interpretation and] to various other schools of thought also, ψ is to be regarded as a calculational convenience with no ontological status other than to be part of the state of mind of the experimenter or theoretician, so that the actual results of observation can be probabilistically assessed. It seems that a good part of such a belief stems from the abhorrence felt by so many physicists that the state of the actual world could suddenly “jump” from time to time in the seemingly random way that is characteristic of the rules of quantum measurement.”

Moreover, Penrose is of the opinion that the de Broglie-Bohm theory, the pilot wave theory, or Bohmian mechanics

“provides an interesting alternative ontology to that provided (or not really provided!) by the Copenhagen view, and it is fairly widely studied, though certainly not qualifying as a fashionable theory. It claims no alternative observational effects from that of conventional quantum mechanics, but provides a much more clear-cut picture of the “reality” of the world.”

I think remarks, views and ideas similar to those of Roger Penrose ought to be taken into consideration. Quantizing gravity is not the only available option. It will be beneficial and useful if other alternatives such as those proposed by Penrose are considered, discussed, studied, and developed, in order to determine the best future direction for research, and formulate comprehensive appropriate consistent theoretical explanations and advances, with regard to gravity and to physics in general.

Existing institutions or systems, alternatives, and historical or future changes

I will give some reflections related to existing or established institutions and forms of goverment or political systems, and their possible alternatives, considering that I read and try to analyze historical events objectively, that I’m not involved in politics, and I’m not attached to any particular political ideology.

The following general remark or observation is worthy of notice: The preference given to a political system or philosophy changes with time. This time usually encompasses one century, or a century and a small additional number of decades.

About three centuries ago, during the first half of the eighteenth century, many thought that absolute monarchy was the best political system or form of government. A precedent and attempts to make societal and political changes were represented in the seventeenth century in the British islands by events such as the English Civil Wars, the reign of Oliver Cromwell, the English Revolution and the Glorious Revolution. But the opinions concerning monarchy and the existing political systems in Europe and the rest of the world did not change significantly. Then came in the eighteenth century the ideas of the philosophers of the age of Enlightment. The American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 took place, followed by the Napoleonic rule and the Napoleonic wars, and opinions started to change.

At about the middle of the nineteenth century, many people as well as several philosophers or thinkers were of the opinion that constitutional monarchy was the best political system. Then new ideas and theories came to being, two world wars and the Russian revolution of 1917 took place. After the second world war, preference was given to political systems such as democracy and republicanism over monarchism, and many considered liberal democracy to be the best political system.

People should regularly seek to reassess and ameliorate societal interactions and norms, existing institutions, educational systems, and political systems, in order to ensure a better future and fair, more efficient and equitable institutions, and a flourishing, nondiscriminatory, inclusive society for everyone.

Another pertinent historical observation consists in the noticeable historical fact that throughout history, all essential great powers follow each other and pass through the same gradual stages of rise, growth and decline.

Yet another related observation is that geopolitical and economic alliances or groupings between nations and powers change or shift with the passage of years, decades, or centuries. Moreover, I mentioned in other posts that regularities, patterns and periodicities can be noticed in the evolution and progress of human history and historical events.

In light of the considerations, observations and analysis above, one ought to expect some changes and/or reforms to take place in the next decades.

Time travel, its possibility, and its representation in the media

Over the past several decades, the topic of time travel has been considered and discussed by physicists, philosophers, journalists, presenters, and lay people. Movies have been made that feature time travel as the main plot or as one of the essential elements of the movie plot.

Some of these movies were entertaining or pleasant, but that does not mean that these movies are accurate or that time travel is possible.

Time travel, whether backwards or forwards, including changing or turning back time, is essentially a speculative, theoretical extrapolation of existing physical theories such as the theory of special relativity. Without getting into all the details or into long philosophical considerations, I esteem that time travel is not really possible or realistically doable.

Various explanations or interpretations have been provided in books or textbooks concerning time travel.

In some good textbooks dealing with the theory of relativity, it is pointed out that experiments have been carried out and have verified the time dilation equation (for example, expriments with muons, with mu mesons, …), but it is also indicated that the phenomenon is called apparent time dilation. In a similar way the phenomenon of length contraction is called apparent length contraction.

Let’s analyze as examples one or two movies featuring time travel and related effects in their plot.

In the movie Superman I starring Christopher Reeve, Superman turns back time as an emotional reaction to the death of Lois Lane. This type of action can be realistically described as a useless, naive action going against the rules of physics.

The scene in the Superman movie seems to assume that the entire world consists of planet Earth. How about “turning around” the solar system, or around the Galaxy, or around the Local Group of galaxies, and so on.

Turning back the rotation of the Earth could very well have devastating effects on everything and everyone on the planet. Not to mention the gravitational perturbations and disturbances affecting the Moon, the planets, the entire solar system, and beyond.

I think it would have been better if the writers had told the story differently, without killing Lois Lane or having Superman “turn back time”.

Time travel has been used and abused in sci-fi movies, and in movies or tv series by DC comics and Marvel comics, as some sort of deus ex machina or ultimate solution to fix everything or to set everything straight. Regrettably, this does not add to the accuracy or credibility of these movies. It also does not make them more realistic or convincing, even when exercising or trying to apply one’s suspension of disbelief.

In the movie Interstellar, physicist Kip Thorne worked out the equations that depict the path of light waves traveling through a wormhole or around a black hole. The visual effects in the film are based on the gravitational theory and the field equations of general relativity.

“Interstellar” is based on generally accurate existing theoretical and scientific concepts like neutron stars, spinning black holes, accretion disks, and time dilation.

Wormholes are theoretical physical entities that are considered to be like tunnels or shortcuts through the geometry of spacetime, connecting different parts of the universe.

According to the story in the movie, a crew of space explorers travel on an extra-galactic journey through a wormhole. They reach on the other side another solar system with a spinning black hole for a sun.

The spaceship’s destination is Gargantua, a supermassive black hole with a mass 100 million times that of the sun, located about 10 billion light-years from Earth. Gargantua rotates at 99.8 percent of the speed of light.

The movie refers to five-dimensional reality, and five-dimensional space is described in the movie as a form of extra-dimensional “tesseract” where time appears as a spatial dimension. The movie plot mentions and uses the concepts of time travel and time dilation.

I want to note that while this movie uses mostly accurate existing theoretical notions in physics, I think that the concepts of time travel and time dilation are nevertheless debatable theoretical and speculative consequences and extrapolations of physical theories such as the theory of relativity, that time travel cannot physically happen, and that it can generally be clarified by other explanations, such as being an apparent effect. In this sense, I think the use of time travel and time dilation diminishes the preciseness and undermines the realistic, plausible character of the movie.

Considering the possibility that in the future rigorous scientific experiments are made and these experiments prove the possibility of faster-than-light speeds and travel, the effects, nature and consequences of faster-than-light speeds should be carefully studied, but I don’t think time travel will be one of those consequences.

Then perhaps new equations, new explanations or new physics rules or laws would have to be formulated. Or perhaps the speed of light would be somewhat viewed like the speed of sound as a limiting speed representing a certain type of singularity. In any case, these are just speculations or general ideas at the present time.

To conclude (again), I think time travel (to the past as well as to the future ) is not possible and will not happen.

A way of proving this could be found not only in physics or in the physical or natural sciences, but also in the objective study of the structure and the rules of (human) historical events, and the realization that there are ‘laws’, patterns and regularities which govern these events.

There will be regrettably no “quantum leap time travel machine”, and no “quantum realm time machine”, these expressions illustrating how the word “quantum” is inaccurately used as a hype word in a attempt to add a veneer of “scientificity” or plausibility to the movies using them. Nobody will be able to travel in time to kill this or that person, or to change history. The Terminator will not and cannot be sent back in time, neither to save nor to kill John and Sarah Connor. The time machine in the eponymous novel by H.G. Wells is not feasible and will not work. The DC comics character the Flash will sadly not be able to change and reverse timelines, or to travel back in time to change past events. I could go on mentioning other examples, novels, works and movies, but I think I got the idea across.

The last several decades witnessed a craze or a fad for entertaining movies involving or dealing with time travel, but I consider that time travel movies, or in general movies that rely on time travel as a plot twist, plot device or as a deus ex machina to solve everything, lack scientific accuracy, and I suggest that moviemakers increasingly stop using time travel altogether, because in the future or in the next decades these types of movies will be viewed or assessed negatively.

Connections and relations between Noah and essential ancient deities, part 2, conclusions and notes

I will continue my exposition and analysis started in a previous post about the links between Noah and the chief god(s) in ancient cultures and religions.

In addition to his scientific contributions, Isaac Newton was known for his interest in occult topics, and for his particular or peculiar religious convictions. That said, he had some insights about the history of ancient religions, and expounded ideas and opinions that were held by scholars and authors during the 17th century and earlier centuries.

Newton expounded his views and ideas about the history of religions mostly in his manuscript document entitled ‘Theologiae gentilis origines philosophicae’ (Philosophical Origins of Gentile Theology). The contents of this document are discussed in the book Never at Rest, a Biography of Isaac Newton, by Richard Westfall:

“The ‘Origines’ started with the argument that all the ancient peoples worshiped the same twelve gods under different names.The gods were divinized ancestors-in fact Noah, his sons, and his grandchildren-though as this religion passed from people to people, each used it to its own ends by identifying the gods with its own early kings and heroes.[…] All peoples worshiped one god whom they took to be the ancestor of the rest. They described him as an old and morose man and associated him with time and with the sea. Clearly, Noah furnished the original model of the god called (among other names) Saturn and Janus. Like Noah, Saturn had three sons. Every people had a god whom they depicted as a mature man, the god they held most in honor. They had translated Ham into Zeus, Jupiter, Hammon, and others.”

Another book explaining Newton’s views is NEWTON AND RELIGION, Context, Nature, and Influence, edited by James Force and Richard Popkin:

“The ‘gods’ of pagan antiquity Newton identifies with Noah and Noah’s descendants. Noah and his sons are first idolized by their people as gods and, ultimately, identified with, especially, planets. Newton argues that Noah is ultimately deified as the god Saturn.”

In light of the authors, texts and documents mentioned in this post and in the related previous post, it can be seen that the identification of chief ancient deities with biblical characters centers around Noah and his children. Sometimes Noah is described as the equivalent of Cronus/ Saturn, sometimes he is identified with Ouranos, or with Zeus/Jupiter.

I think the best and most accurate description of Noah is to identify him with Zeus or Jupiter. Zeus or the other names by which he was known (Jupiter, Amun-Ra, Marduk, Baal, …, with some small differences or variations in their attributes, roles, and characteristics) as a supreme god in Antiquity was revered, followed or worshipped during many centuries. It is the most plausible explanation that the important and essential biblical character named Noah is the same person as the essential supreme deity known as Zeus or Jupiter, and also known by other names. Moreover, let us note that some authors identified the supreme god Ahura Mazda with Zeus, and that the chief Hindu god Indra has many common characteristics with Zeus.

Thus it can be stated that the story of Noah is the Biblical or monotheistic version of the story of Zeus or Jupiter, or equivalently, the Biblical character or figure Noah is the monotheistic version of (and the same person or original historical figure as) the non-monotheistic or polytheistic character and deity called Zeus or Jupiter.

It it possible to provide some additional explanations and clarifications.

The ancient Hebrews, their scribes and priests, or the followers of the (mainly monotheistic) Biblical religion in Antiquity and many others very likely knew about the connection between Noah and the deity called Zeus, Baal or Jupiter. This connection was more and more forgotten with the passing of years and centuries, notably in the centuries following the beginning of the Christian era. It is possible to argue or note that the conflicts or disagreements between the ancient monotheistic followers of the biblical religion and the (mostly polytheistic) people around them (from the ancient Egyptians and the Canaanites to the Greeks and Romans) were similar to the conflicts and disagreements between the followers of Islam, who viewed Jesus as a very important prophet, and the followers of Christianity, who regarded Jesus as the divine son of God and equal to God.

These connections and relations became somewhat blurred and unclear with time, causing some confusion, and leading various authors in the last few centuries to surmise and write that either Noah or his son Ham or his son Japheth could be identified with Zeus/Jupiter.

A man lived in the ancient past about two millennia before the start of the Christian era. This great man initiated new innovative teachings and ideas, and accomplished important deeds, which included piloting a ship that was unique in its kind and represented a great technological achievement. There were possibly a few animals on the ship, or not. The animals were mostly the results of posterior modifications and embellishments of the story. There was possibly a local flood or some local floods at the time when the ship sailed, but the limited knowledge of geography people had at that time, and later transmissions, embroiderings, added metaphorical elements and retransmissions of the story described the flood as global. The followers of this man gave different interpretations to the story of his life and actions, depending on their different mentalities, views and perspectives. Some increasingly revered him after he died, and many deified him with members of his family, giving him different names in different places, such as Amun-Ra, Baal and Zeus. Some also viewed him as a great man, prophet and patriarch.

About six centuries after the passing of this man, another man named Moses and his followers, inspired by earlier narratives of the ship and the flood, interpreted the story of this earlier important patriarch and described it in a strictly monotheistic way, calling him Noah.

The same thing happened two thousand years after the passing of the one who was later named Zeus (or Noah) to the great man named Jesus, who gave new innovative teachings for his time. The followers of Jesus interpreted his story in different ways and directions in the following centuries, many revering him and deifying him. And Christianity as the religion with Jesus as its head progressively replaced the religion having Zeus or Jupiter as its head.

About six centuries after Jesus, his story was interpreted in a strictly monotheistic way by the founder of Islam and his followers, who regarded Jesus as a very important prophet. It is to be noted that Noah and Jesus are regarded as two of the five greatest and most important prophets in Islam.

Patterns and regularities can be noticed in the progress of historical events described above, which can be explained by taking into account notions such as the periodical or cyclical return of events, and the transmutation or inversion of values, related to the philosophical ideas of Nietzsche.

In ancient cultures the great flood was justified by the decision and will of the relevant supreme god. In the Bible the flood was explained by the will of the biblical monotheistic god. The flood was explained by Christians as the result of the will and involvement of the Christian God and Jesus. And so on.

Some additional variations in the biblical account of the story of Noah can be explained.

I analyzed the story of Prometheus in previous posts. Prometheus was plausibly someone who stole fire from Zeus (or Noah) by envy, hubris and greed years before the ship sailed or was navigated, and was held accountable and punished. The story of Prometheus is not mentioned in the Bible, in the same way as the story of a character like Judas Iscariot is not mentioned in the Quran.

Since it was not appropriate for the man who was deified as the supreme god Zeus (or Marduk or Jupiter) and who ordered the Deluge to be the pilot of the ship, the story was modified and the man who piloted or navigated the ship was described as someone else, named Deucalion or Utnapishtim.

I mentioned elsewhere that people in Antiquity had a more permissive view of sexuality and were not inconvenienced by incest. For example, ancient Greeks used to celebrate annually the “Hieros Gamos” or holy marriage between Zeus and his sister-wife Hera. This importance given to endogamous marriage explains why the parents of Zeus, Cronus and Rhea, were depicted in ancient stories as brother and sister, even if in real history they were not necessarily siblings. The supreme god was supposed to be fertile and sexually active in Antiquity. By contrast, Christianity highlights or emphasizes the importance of chastity and virginity; this explains the insistence on the virginity of the mother of Jesus in the centuries following the start of the Christian era.

---

Taking into consideration the results and conclusions reached in this post, I want to give some remarks about the god of war game, which I alluded to in an earlier post.

The god of war game is distorting ancient stories, religions and cultures, inciting the misunderstanding or possibly the hatred of these cultures.

From the arguments in this post, it can be seen that this is a pointless game that is not only portraying badly ancient gods and deities, but is also killing a deity like Zeus, who is the non-monotheistic version of the story of Noah. Effectively the non-biblical version of Noah is being killed in the game, and nobody seems to comprehend this.

Perhaps players of the game don’t care about anything except pushing buttons and destroying all that can destroyed in the game, or perhaps some players have other religious backgrounds or think they are killing bad gods or “demonic” versions of ancient characters. The game depicts the killing of gods of the Greek pantheon and the Norse pantheon. If in the future this game involves for example killing ancient Egyptian gods, this would be somewhat ridiculous, since Amun-Ra and other Egyptian gods are the equivalents and the Egyptian versions of Zeus and other Greek gods.

I think the best attitude is to try to be neutral and try to understand other cultures. One does not have to follow or like someone like Zeus, Odin or Hercules, but one also does not have to portray them badly and show then getting killed.

I also think this game will not have good consequences, and that it is playing with things that should not be played with.

Connections and relations between Noah and essential ancient deities, part 1

Noah in the Bible, Deucalion in ancient Greek stories and mythology, and Utnapishtim in ancient Mesopotamian stories are figures or characters associated with a story of a global flood, being the only survivors (along with some other people, depending on the version of the story) and all connected to a supreme god (or gods) who warned them and helped them survive the flood.

The story of the ship and the flood was mentioned in ancient religions such as the Sumerian, Mesopotamian and Greek religions (with some modifications), always in relation to the supreme deity.

Something that has been forgotten in the last one or two centuries is that several authors in the past stated or thought that Zeus or Jupiter was the same person as one of the earliest most important patriarchs and prophets mentioned in the Bible, his story having been modified to comply with biblical monotheism.

There are many things and facts about ancient stories and cultures that became forgotten and misunderstood.
Judaism and Abrahamic religions have their early foundations and origins in older narratives and religions that had chief gods like Amun Ra, Marduk, Baal and Zeus, who were equivalent deities and represented effectively the same supreme god with different names in different places.

I will give a general exposition of the opinions and statements of these early authors, and present my conclusions according to my readings, observations, and analysis.

Reviewing the opinions of ancient authors or authors from previous centuries, one notices that they sometimes make different inaccurate comparisons, equivalences or identifications between deities or characters, but these identifications usually center around a few specific figures. The works and opinions of these authors may sometimes be described as not compatible with modern criteria of scholarship, but they contain useful historical information and views that were transmitted, sometimes with modifications, throughout the centuries.

Jacob Bryant (1715–1804) was an English scholar and mythographer. The following lines are taken from the first volume of his work A New System or Analysis of Ancient Mythology:

“[From the evidence of ancient authors and historians, it is found that] the Deluge was the grand epoch of every ancient kingdom. It is to be observed, that when colonies made anywhere a settlement, they ingrafted their antecedent history upon the subsequent events of the place. And as in those days they could carry up the genealogy of their princes to the very source of all, it will be found, under whatever title he may come, that the first king in every country was Noah. For as he was mentioned first in the genealogy of their princes, he was in aftertimes looked upon as a real monarch; and represented as a great traveller, a mighty conqueror, and sovereign of the whole earth.”

Here are statements by Bryant from the third volume of the same work. Note that there are more accurate, modern explanations of the origin and meaning of the name of Zeus:

“Noah was the original Ζευς, Zeus, and Dios. He was the planter of the vine, and the inventor of fermented liquors: whence he was denominated Zeuth, which signifies ferment, rendered Ζευς, Zeus by the Greeks. He was also Dionusos, interpreted by the Latines Bacchus, but very improperly. Bacchus was Chus, the grandson of Noah; as Ammon may be in general esteemed Ham, so much reverenced by the Egyptians.”

The lines below are from the work of William Howitt (1792–1879), entitled The History of the Supernatural in all Ages and Nations, and in all Churches, Christian and Pagan, demonstrating a Universal Faith:

“[Referring to the ancient Phoenician author Sanchoniatho or Sanchuniathon] In the remains of the Cosmogony of this historian of the Phoenicians, we have the mythology of that people, presenting the clearest testimony of the derivation of the Greek mythology from it. The Phoenicians, the great traders to western Europe, carrying their ideas as well as their wares everywhere, planted them all around the Mediterranean, and much farther west. Danaus and Orpheus are said to have carried much mythologic knowledge from Egypt to Greece; but the Phoenician mythology bears a still greater resemblance to the Greek theogony. […] Dagon, the brother of Cronus, is evidently Noah, for he came up out of the water. Cronus had also three sons, Zeus, Belus and Apollo.

[…] we find, from Central Asia, the same gods under different names, and what is more remarkable, the same primal doctrines of a triune and yet one God surviving everywhere under the most multifarious disguises. Probably these truths were the more strongly imprinted on the ancient mind, Noah, whom they deified, having three sons, whom they had come to regard as a reappearance of Adam and his three sons, Cain, Abel, and Seth.”

There is also mention of the writings of the ancient Chaldean or Babylonian author Beros(s)us about Xisuthrus (Noah) who was warned by Cronus-Enki about the flood. Berosus was mentioned and quoted by early historians such as Eusebius of Caeserea and Josephus. He was also cited by authors such as Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, and Pausanias.

It is also possible to cite the ancient Egyptian priest Manetho, who was cited by later authors, and who wrote that “the first king of Egypt belonged to the tribe of Cham [Ham], Noah’s son; he was Pharaoh, who was also called Naracho”.

According to some other authors, Noah was identified with Ouranos, Noah’s son Ham was identified with Cronus or Saturn, and Zeus was identified with Mizraim the son of Ham. Some also idendified Noah’s son Japheth with Zeus/Jupiter, probably because of a superficial comparison between the letters and the names of the characters.

This post and my conclusions will be continued in a second part.

Some AI generated poetry, questions and answers

I have been recently trying the ChatGPT AI chatbot application, asking some questions and obtaining answers which can be described as interesting and educational. It is also possible to verify that one can find good answers to questions related to various programming languages.

Without further ado, here are some questions (aka chats) and the answers provided.

Q: Write a sonnet with rhyme about nuclear and particle physics

A:

Nuclear and particle physics,
Fields that are complex, yet so precise,
Unravelling the secrets of matter and energy,
Discoveries that are quite a surprise.

From quarks and leptons to protons and neutrons,
From fission and fusion to radioactivity,
The mysteries of the atomic nucleus
Are revealed through experiments with intensity.

But the study of these fundamental forces
Is not just about equations and theories,
It’s about understanding the universe
And how it works, from its smallest to largest entities.

So let us delve into the depths of physics,
Uncovering new truths and unlocking mysteries.

Q: Write a limerick about planet Mars

A:

There once was a planet called Mars,
Whose red hue caused people to pause,
It was filled with dry dust,
And was a place most people would cuss,
But some saw it as an exciting new cause.

Q: Write a limerick about differential equations

A:

There was a differential equation,
That caused quite a stir and commotion,
It was tough to solve,
But eventually it was resolved,
And the solution brought great elation.

Q: Write a stanza about the Higgs boson

A:

The Higgs boson, a particle so small,
Discovered at the Large Hadron Collider,
It gives mass to all,
A force that’s hard to recall,
A fundamental part of the universe’s order.

Named for physicist Peter Higgs,
Who proposed its existence back in 1964,
It took decades to find,
But now we’re sure it’s intertwined,
In the fabric of space and time, forevermore.

So let us celebrate this discovery,
A triumph of science and technology,
The Higgs boson, a marvel to see,
A testament to the mysteries yet to be.

Q: Write a limerick about Newton and Leibniz

A:

Newton and Leibniz, two giants of math,
Each had their own approach to the path,
Newton developed calculus,
Leibniz came up with a basis,
Together, they expanded human’s math.

Q: distance between planet Mars and Earth on September 15, 2035 in astronomical units

A: The distance between Mars and Earth on September 15, 2035, in astronomical units (AU) will be approximately 0.614 AU. This is equivalent to 91.5 million kilometers (56.9 million miles). It’s worth noting that one astronomical unit (AU) is defined as the average distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is approximately 149.6 million kilometers (93 million miles). So, 0.614 AU is equivalent to 91.5 million kilometers (56.9 million miles) approximately. Also, keep in mind that this prediction is based on current knowledge of planetary dynamics, and small errors may occur due to unmodeled perturbations or other factors.

Actually the distance between Mars and Earth given by ChatGPT is not accurate, since according to several astronomy programs, applications and software the distance between Mars and Earth on September 15,2035 is or will be approximately 0.381 AU, or about 57 million kilometers.

Q: Was Prometheus punished justly?

A:

Prometheus was a figure from Greek mythology who is known for stealing fire from the gods and giving it to humans. According to the myth, Prometheus’s actions angered Zeus, the king of the gods, and he punished Prometheus by having him chained to a rock, where an eagle would come each day and eat his liver, which would then grow back overnight, causing Prometheus to suffer eternally.

Whether or not Prometheus was punished justly depends on one’s interpretation of the myth and their personal beliefs. Some may view Prometheus’s punishment as justified because he disrespected the gods and broke a divine rule by stealing fire. Others may see it as excessive and unjust because Prometheus was only trying to help humanity by giving them fire, which was a vital resource for survival. Ultimately, the question of whether Prometheus was punished justly is a matter of personal perspective.

Here is a somewhat more serious question:

Q: What is the meaning of life?

A: The meaning of life is a question that has puzzled philosophers, theologians, and scientists for centuries. There is no one answer that can be given, as the meaning of life is likely to be different for every individual. Some people believe that the meaning of life is to find happiness and fulfillment, while others believe that it is to contribute to the greater good of society. Still others believe that the meaning of life is to seek enlightenment and understanding of the world and our place in it. Ultimately, the meaning of life is something that each person must determine for themselves, based on their own values, beliefs, and experiences.

Questions can be asked and answers provided in other languages too. It is to be noted that this application has its limitations and it can still be enhanced, improved or upgraded.

Polytheistic, monotheistic, and other aspects and views of religions and cultures

I will try to provide some notes and analysis concerning the differences and possible similarities between religions that are described as monotheistic or polytheistic, considering that there are connections between them.

Various theological explanations and philosophical interpretations have been given to the doctrine or concept of the Trinity throughout the history of Christianity.

The religions that can be regarded as strictly monotheistic are the Mosaic religion or Judaism, and the Islamic religion. Christianity could be described as a religion with limited monotheism or non-strict monotheism, depending on the interpretations.

From a historical point of view, Christianity as a religion having Jesus at its head gradually replaced the religion having Zeus or Jupiter as its head. In Christianity, God is given many attributes, Jesus is given many traits, character qualities, and attributes, and Mary the mother of Jesus has many qualities and virtues, and the same applies to other important religious figures.

In ancient religion(s), deities such as Zeus and the other gods are described by many or several attributes and epithets. In Christianity there is one God. For Trinitarians the one God exists in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons. This God is surrounded by angels, heavenly creatures and saints who are often patron saints of a group of people, or of a place, etc.

In ancient religion(s) there is a chief supreme god who is surrounded by creatures or characters with certain roles or functions, and by gods or demi-gods who could be patron gods adopted by a person, a group of persons, a place, a city, and so on.

Differences and contrasts between Christianity and ancient religions revolve (among other things) around their views about the conduct and way of life, the afterlife, hell, and sexuality.

Christianity emphasizes the importance of values or concepts such as chastity, abstinence, renouncing earthly desires and wealth, forgiveness, …

A way to explain the story of the life of Jesus and the ancient stories about a supreme god or deity like Zeus or Jupiter can be done in relation to the philosophical doctrine, theory or approach of Euhemerism, where the gods are viewed as great men or persons who lived at a particular period of time in history, who accomplished great deeds and innovative things or provided new important teachings, and who were revered and deified after they died, their stories being interpreted, reinterpreted, modified, allegorized or embellished with the passing of time.

These persons or historical figures didn’t necessarily lie and deceive or ask to be worshipped. They lived their lives and achieved great deeds and actions, then the reverence, deification and/or worship happened mostly after they died as the result of the interpretations and choices of their followers who remembered them and revered them according to their own ways and understandings. Throughout history there are also those who try to profit and have control over others by using particular interpretations of the stories of the great persons or innovators who preceded them.

Ancient religions usually depicted as polytheistic sometimes had doctrines or concepts approaching monotheism. Some historical examples are provided by the following online Encyclopedia Britannica article about monotheism:

“[In ancient Egyptian religion] are found polytheism, henotheism, pluriform monotheism, trinitarian speculations, and even a kind of monotheism. Especially in the time of the New Kingdom (16th–11th century BCE) and later, there arose theological speculations about many gods and the one god, involving concepts that belong to the realm of pluriform monotheism. These ideas are especially interesting when related to trinitarian conceptions, as they sometimes are. In a New Kingdom hymn to Amon are the words: “Three are all gods: Amon, Re and Ptah…he who hides himself for [humanity] as Amon, he is Re to be seen, his body is Ptah.” As Amon he is the “hidden god” (deus absconditus); in Re, the god of the sun, he becomes visible; as Ptah, one of the gods of the earth, he is immanent in this world.

[…] The classic religions of Greece and Rome were in the main polytheistic, but in later times tendencies arose, partly stimulated by philosophy and later also by Judaism and Christianity, toward inclusive monotheism. The hymn to Zeus by the Stoic philosopher Cleanthes (c. 330–c. 230 BCE) is the best-known document of this process. It praises Zeus as the essence of divinity in all gods, creator and ruler of the cosmos, omnipotent, the giver of every gift, and the father of humanity. In the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and in the religious philosophies of later antiquity, such as Neoplatonism and Neo-Pythagoreanism, inclusive monotheism was more or less the rule.”

The following Orphic hymn to Zeus shows a tendency towards monotheism, where Zeus is presented as the only god and as the creator of all the other gods who emanated from him:

“Zeus was first, Zeus was last, god of the bright bolt:
Zeus is the head, Zeus the middle, from Zeus are all things made;

Zeus the breath of all, Zeus was the fate of all:
Zeus is the king, Zeus the ruler of all, god of the bright bolt.”

I mentioned in other posts that something that has been forgotten in the last one or two centuries is that according to several authors in the past, Zeus or Jupiter was the same person as one of the earliest most important patriarchs mentioned in the Bible, his story having been modified to comply with biblical monotheism.

From a historical point of view, the Greek supreme god Zeus was identified with the Canaanite and Phoenician god Baal, and the father of Zeus, Cronus, was identified with Baal’s father, the god El. Zeus and El/Cronus were also known by other names in other places in Antiquity.

Many interactions in Antiquity took place between the ancient Hebrew religion and the ancient Canaanite, Ugaritic and Phoenician religion(s).

The word Elohim, used in the early parts of the Bible, is a grammatically plural noun for “gods” or “deities”, and is related to the word el. It is cognate to the word ‘l-h-m which is found in Ugaritic, where it is used as the pantheon for Canaanite gods, the children of El. This word is considered to be mostly used in the Bible to specifically designate the monotheistic Biblical God, who is also known as Yahweh. All of this may have caused some to identify El/Cronus with Yahweh, as it seems to have happened in this question.

There were period of time in human history when monotheism became stronger, and other periods when monotheistic beliefs were less strong.

Concerning the word atheist, it is to be noted that this word refers to the disbelief in, or the denial of, the existence of God or of gods. Historically, any person in Antiquity who did not believe in any deity supported by the state and by society was accused of atheism. Early Christians were described as atheists because they did not participate in the cults of the recognized gods and deities. So the words atheist and atheism can be applied in various contexts, not just in relation to the modern concept of people not believing in Christianity or in monotheism.

As a form of connection between monotheism and polytheism in Antiquity, let us also mention the Hypsistarians, i.e. worshippers of the Hypsistos (Greek: Ὕψιστος, the “Most High” God), and similar variations of the term first appearing in the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, in the fourth century CE. The term has been linked to a body of inscriptions that date from around 100 CE to around 400 CE, mostly small votive offerings, but also including altars and stelae, dedicated to Theos Hypsistos, or sometimes simply Hypsistos.

Some Hypsistarians followed syncretized monotheism and combined religious practices from paganism and Judaism, such as incorporating the cult of Zeus Sabazios with the God Yahweh Sabaoth.

Early followers of Christianity and Christian authors or theologians may have been influenced by religious imagery or representations found in ancient Egyptian religion and other old religions, and attempted to use such representations and adapt them in ways compatible with Christianity.

Pantheons of gods and relations, similarities or differences between religions, deities, and cultures

I will start by noting that several essential gods of different ancient pantheons can be identified as being the same or equivalent deities, with different names (and small variations in their stories).
Some authors identified the supreme god Ahura Mazda with Zeus.
The Egyptian supreme god Amun-Ra was the same as Zeus or Jupiter, also called Zeus Ammon or Jupiter Ammon.
Sometimes there was more than just a “triad” of important gods, such as the Ennead or Great Ennead, a group of nine deities in Egyptian mythology and ancient Egyptian religion, worshipped at the city of Heliopolis.

The Ennead included the sun god Atum; his children Shu and Tefnut; their children Geb and Nut; and their children Osiris, Isis, Set, and Nephthys. The Ennead sometimes included Horus, the son of Osiris and Isis.
Atum was equated with the sun god Ra. In the New Kingdom, when the god Amun rose to prominence he was merged with Ra as Amun-Ra.

In the ancient Canaanite and Phoenician religions, Baal is the equivalent of Zeus, and the god of the sea Yam is the equivalent of Poseidon or Neptune. The god Mot is identified with Hades or Pluto.

The Babylonian king of the gods Marduk was associated with Zeus by the ancient Greeks, and associated with Jupiter by the Romans. There is an ancient Hittite and Hurrian group of texts known as The Song of Kumarbi, “Song of Emergence” or Kingship in Heaven. Scholars have pointed out the similarities between the Hurrian myth and the story from Greek mythology of Uranus, Cronus, and Zeus.

In Hinduism the chief god Indra has many characteristics in common with Zeus.

It is possible to notice that several ancient religions or cultures were connected and had a common origin. One could observe or suggest that these ancient religions and the related ancient stories and mythologies had their origin in the ancient Near East, West Asia and the (eastern) Mediterranean, plausibly based on some events that were rooted in history. A second related source of origin pertains to ancient India and the ancient Hindu religion, since the ancient Indians had many historical interactions with the ancient Persians in terms of cultural exchanges and political influence (particularly during the Achaemenid empire), language, religion, spirituality, etc. The ancient practices, beliefs, ideas and religions spread to the entire Mediterranean region and to the south of Europe, to Greece and Italy. It is plausible that these ancient religions, stories and practices also spread (with some modifications) to the north and to other parts of Europe through a process of gradual cultural diffusion, influencing the formation of ancient Germanic and Norse religion(s) and mythology.

In light of my readings and analysis, it can be said that whether polytheistic or not, religions and cultures are interconnected in one way or another. The ancient allegorical stories of gods and deities that were constructed, embellished and changed with time could be explained reasonably by philosophical doctrines similar to Euhemerism, where these diverse embroidered stories are considered to be rooted in history. A very plausible and a realistic explanation of the origins of ancient religions is that most of them (in the ancient world and in the Mediterranean region and the Near East, and beyond), started mainly with a man who lived in ancient times, most likely about two millennia before the beginning of the Common or Christian era. This man did great and important things, accomplished great deeds, and brought about new innovative teachings and ideas for his time. This man left a lasting impression on those who saw or knew him. When he died he was revered, his life and actions being interpreted in different ways and directions. There were people who revered him a lot, divinized and deified him or started worshipping him.

This man was later called Amun Ra by the Egyptians. He was called Baal by the Canaanites and the Phoenicians, Zeus by the ancient Greeks, and Jupiter by the Romans. He was very likely the same deity as the supreme god Indra of the Hindus (since Zeus and Indra had many similar characteristics), Ahura Mazda of the ancient Persians, as well as other supreme gods in the ancient world.

Regarded as the head of a pantheon (or several related and connected pantheons, with small or minor differences between them), and as the father and ruler of the gods, he, his family and the other related deities had their stories transmitted, retransmitted, interpreted, reinterpreted, and modified over the years and centuries. Supernatural, symbolic and metaphorical elements were added to the stories of the gods with the passing of time. Each generation or group of people interpreted these ancient stories according to their understanding and their cultural and physical environment.

Did this man or person want to be deified or worshipped? He likely wanted to live his life and “do what was needed”, he knew that he was doing important things and that he was going to be remembered, but the deification or worship and the subsequent rituals and religious practices were mostly the result of the interpretations and choices of those who knew him, liked him, and/or followed him.

A thing that has been somewhat forgotten in the last two centuries is that many authors of the past, from the ancient Babylonian author Berosus to Isaac Newton and others, stated or were of the opinion that Zeus or Jupiter was the same person as one of the earliest and most important patriarchs in the Bible, his story having been modified to comply with biblical monotheism.

Another man came and lived about two millennia ago. He did important things, brought about new innovative teachings and concepts of morality for his time, and left a big impression on those who knew him and on his followers. He was subsequently revered, deified and worshipped by his followers, his story being interpreted and explained in various and different ways and directions, with allegorical and supernatural elements added to it. This man is mostly known by the name of Jesus.

About three centuries after his passing, the religion with Jesus at its head gradually replaced the religion having Zeus or Jupiter at its head.

In the same way that the one known as Zeus or Jupiter was mentioned as a very important patriarch or prophet in the monotheistic Bible, Jesus was later mentioned as a very important prophet in the strictly monotheistic Quran.

During the last century and the last few decades, a progressive change in mentalities and a regain of interest in ancient philosophies, ancient cultures, and ancient religions took place. Taking into account the evolution of ideas and the progress and advances in science during the last centuries and decades, there is a possibility that a new transmutation of values is gradually taking place, related to some sort of periodical or cyclical return of historical events, being the inverse of what happened at the start of Christianity two millennia ago. In any case, one will have to wait, see and look at the unfolding of future events.