72 ideas
| 17016 | Philosophy must abstract from the senses [Newton] |
| Full Idea: In philosophy abstraction from the senses is required. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Def 8 Schol) | |
| A reaction: He particularly means 'natural philosophy' (i.e. science), but there is no real distinction in Newton's time, and I would say this remark is true of modern philosophy. |
| 13395 | If an analysis shows the features of a concept, it doesn't seem to 'reduce' the concept [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: An analysis of a concept tells us what the concept is by telling us what its constituents are and how they are combined. ..The features of the concept are present in the analysis, making it surprising the 'reductive' analyses are sought. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 4.5) | |
| A reaction: He says that there are nevertheless reductive analyses, such as David Lewis's analysis of modality. We must disentangle conceptual analysis from causal analysis (e.g. in his example of the physicalist reduction of mind). |
| 13378 | It is a mistake to think that the logic developed for mathematics can clarify language and philosophy [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: It has often been uncritically assumed that logic that was initially a tool for clarifying mathematics could be seamlessly and uniformly applied in the effort to clarify ordinary language and philosophy, but this has been a real mistake. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], Intro) | |
| A reaction: I'm not saying he's right (since you need stupendous expertise to make that call) but my intuitions are that he has a good point, and he is at least addressing a crucial question which most analytical philosophers avert their eyes from. |
| 13402 | We only grasp a name if we know whether to apply it when the bearer changes [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: We cannot be said to have a full grasp of a name unless we have a definite disposition to apply it or to withhold it under whatever conceivable changes the bearer of the name might come to undergo. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 5.3) | |
| A reaction: This is right, and an excellent counterproposal to the logicians' notion that names have to rigidly designate. As a bare minimum, you are not supposed to deny the identity of your parents because they have grown a bit older, or a damaged painting. |
| 13405 | The baptiser picks the bearer of a name, but social use decides the category [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: The person who introduces a proper name gets to pick its bearer, but its category - and consequently the meaning of the name - is determined by social use. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 7) | |
| A reaction: New 'division of labour'. The idea that a name has some sort of meaning seems right and important. If babies were switched after baptism, social use might fix the name to the new baby. The namer could stipulate the category at the baptism. Too neat. |
| 13399 | Examples show that ordinary proper names are not rigid designators [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: There are plenty of examples to show that ordinary proper names simply are not rigid designators. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 5.1) | |
| A reaction: His examples are the planet Venus and the dust of which it is formed, and a statue made of clay. In other words, for some objects, perhaps under certain descriptions (e.g. functional ones), the baptised matter can change. Rigidity is an extra topping. |
| 13398 | We could make a contingent description into a rigid and necessary one by adding 'actual' to it [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: 'The winner of the Derby' satisfies some horse, but only accidentally. But we could 'rigidify' the description by inserting 'actual' into it, giving 'the actual winner of the Derby'. Winning is a contingent property, but actually winning is necessary. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 5.1) | |
| A reaction: I like this unusual proposal because instead of switching into formal logic in order to capture the ideas we are after, he is drawing on the resources of ordinary language, offering philosophers a way of speaking plain English more precisely. |
| 13392 | Philosophers reduce complex English kind-quantifiers to the simplistic first-order quantifier [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: There is a readiness of philosophers to 'translate' English, with its seeming multitude of kind-driven quantifiers, into first-order logic, with its single wide-open quantifier. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: As in example he says that reference to a statue involves a 'statue-quantifier'. Thus we say things about the statue that we would not say about the clay, which would involve a 'clay-quantifier'. |
| 18079 | Newton developed a kinematic approach to geometry [Newton, by Kitcher] |
| Full Idea: The reduction of the problems of tangents, normals, curvature, maxima and minima were effected by Newton's kinematic approach to geometry. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Philip Kitcher - The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge 10.1 | |
| A reaction: This approach apparently contrasts with that of Leibniz. |
| 18082 | Quantities and ratios which continually converge will eventually become equal [Newton] |
| Full Idea: Quantities and the ratios of quantities, which in any finite time converge continually to equality, and, before the end of that time approach nearer to one another by any given difference become ultimately equal. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Lemma 1), quoted by Philip Kitcher - The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge 10.2 | |
| A reaction: Kitcher observes that, although Newton relies on infinitesimals, this quotation expresses something close to the later idea of a 'limit'. |
| 13404 | To exist necessarily is to have an essence whose own essence must be instantiated [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: For a thing to exist necessarily is for it to have an entity-essence whose own entity-essence entails being instantiated. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 6.4) | |
| A reaction: This is the culmination of a lengthy discussion, and is not immediately persuasive. For Jubien the analysis rests on a platonist view of properties, which doesn't help. |
| 13386 | If objects are just conventional, there is no ontological distinction between stuff and things [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: Under the Quinean (conventional) view of objects, there is no ontological distinction between stuff and things. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: This is the bold nihilistic account of physical objects, which seems to push all of our ontology into language (English?). We could devise divisions into things that were just crazy, and likely to lead to the rapid extinction of creatures who did it. |
| 13403 | The category of Venus is not 'object', or even 'planet', but a particular class of good-sized object [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: The category of Venus is not 'physical object' or 'mereological sum', but narrower. Surprisingly, it is not 'planet', since it might cease to be a planet and still merit the name 'Venus'. It is something like 'well-integrated, good-sized physical object'. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 5.3) | |
| A reaction: Jubien is illustrating Idea 13402. This is a nice demonstration of how one might go about the task of constructing categories - by showing the modal profiles of things to which names have been assigned. Categories are file names. |
| 17011 | I suspect that each particle of bodies has attractive or repelling forces [Newton] |
| Full Idea: Many things lead me to a suspicion that all phenomena may depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by causes not yet known, either are impelled toward one another and cohere in regular figures,or are repelled from one another and recede. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Pref) | |
| A reaction: For Newton, forces are not just abstractions that are convenient for mathematics, but realities which I would say are best described as 'powers'. |
| 13375 | The idea that every entity must have identity conditions is an unfortunate misunderstanding [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: The pervasiveness, throughout philosophy, of the assumption that entities of various kinds need identity conditions is one unfortunate aspect of Quine's important philosophical legacy. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Lowe seems to be an example of a philosopher who habitually demands individuation conditions for everything that is referred to. Presumably the alternative is to take lots of things as primitive, but this seems to be second best. |
| 13393 | Any entity has the unique property of being that specific entity [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: For any entity of any sort, abstract or concrete, I assume there is a property of being that specific entity. For want of a better term, I will call such properties entity-essences. They are 'singulary' - not instantiable by more than one thing at a time. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 4.2) | |
| A reaction: Baffling. Why would someone who has mocked all sorts of bogus philosophical claims based on logic then go on to assert the existence of such weird things as these? I can't make sense of this property being added to a thing's other properties. |
| 13388 | It is incoherent to think that a given entity depends on its kind for its existence [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: It is simply far-fetched - even incoherent - to think that, given an entity, of whatever kind, its being a single entity somehow consists in its satisfying some condition involving the kind to which it belongs (or concepts related to that kind). | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 2.3) | |
| A reaction: Well said. I can't see how philosophers have allowed themselves to drift into such a daft view. Kinds blatantly depend on the individuals that constitute them, so how could the identity of the individuals depend on their kind? |
| 13384 | Objects need conventions for their matter, their temporal possibility, and their spatial possibility [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: We need a first convention to determine what matter constitutes objects, then a second to determine whether there are different temporal possibilities for a given object, then a third for different spatial possibilities. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: This is building up a Quinean account of objects, as mere matter in regions of spacetime, which are then precisely determined by a set of social conventions. |
| 13385 | Basically, the world doesn't have ready-made 'objects'; we carve objects any way we like [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: There is a certain - very mild - sense in which I don't think the physical world comes with ready-made objects. I think instead that we (conventionally) carve it up into objects, and this can be done any way we like. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 1.5) | |
| A reaction: I have no idea how one could begin to refute such a view. Obviously there are divisions (even if only of physical density) in the world, but nothing obliges us to make divisions at those points. We happily accept objects with gaps in them. |
| 17028 | Particles mutually attract, and cohere at short distances [Newton] |
| Full Idea: The particles of bodies attract one another at very small distances and cohere when they become contiguous. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Bk 3 Gen Schol) | |
| A reaction: This is the sort of account of unity which has to be given in the corpuscular view of things, once substantial forms are given up. What is missing here is the structure of the thing. A lump of dirt is as unified as a cat in this story. |
| 13383 | If the statue is loved and the clay hated, that is about the object first qua statue, then qua clay [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: If a sculptor says 'I love the statue but I really hate that piece of clay - it is way too hard to work with' ...the statement is partly is partly about that object qua statue and partly about that object qua piece of clay. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: His point is that identity is partly determined by the concept or category under which the thing falls. Plausible. Lots of identity muddles seem to come from our conceptual scheme not being quite up to the job when things change. |
| 13400 | If one entity is an object, a statue, and some clay, these come apart in at least three ways [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: A single entity is a physical object, a piece of clay and a statue. We seem to have that the object could be scattered, but not the other two; the object and the clay could be spherical, but not the statue; and only the object could have different matter. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 5.2) | |
| A reaction: His proposal, roughly, is to reduce object-talk to property-talk, and then see the three views of this object as referring to different sets of properties, rather than to a single thing. Promising, except that he goes platonist about properties. |
| 13401 | The idea of coincident objects is a last resort, as it is opposed to commonsense naturalism [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: I find it surprising that some philosophers accept 'coincident objects'. This notion clearly offends against commonsense 'naturalism' about the world, so it should be viewed as a last resort. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 5.2 n9) | |
| A reaction: I'm not quite clear why he invokes 'naturalism', but I pass on his intuition because it seems right to me. |
| 13380 | Parts seem to matter when it is just an object, but not matter when it is a kind of object [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: When thought of just as an object, the parts of a thing seem definitive and their arrangement seems inconsequential. But when thought of as an object of a familiar kind it is reversed: the arrangement is important and the parts are inessential. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: This is analogous to the Ship of Theseus, where we say that the tour operator and the museum keeper give different accounts of whether it is the same ship. The 'kind' Jubien refers to is most likely to be a functional kind. |
| 17014 | The place of a thing is the sum of the places of its parts [Newton] |
| Full Idea: The place of a whole is the same as the sum of the places of the parts, and is therefore internal and in the whole body. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Def 8 Schol) | |
| A reaction: Note that Newton is talking of the sums of places, and deriving them from the parts. This is the mereology of space. |
| 13376 | We should not regard essentialism as just nontrivial de re necessity [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: I argue against the widely accepted characterization of the doctrine of 'essentialism' as the acceptance of nontrivial de re necessity | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], Intro) | |
| A reaction: I agree entirely. The notion of an essence is powerful if clearly distinguished. The test is: can everything being said about essences be just as easily said by referring to necessities? If so, you are talking about the wrong thing. |
| 13381 | Thinking of them as 'ships' the repaired ship is the original, but as 'objects' the reassembly is the original [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: Thinking about the original ship as a ship, we think we continue to have the 'same ship' as each part is replaced; ...but when we think of them as physical objects, we think the original ship and the outcome of the reassembly are one and the same. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: It seems to me that you cannot eliminate how we are thinking of the ship as influencing how we should read it. My suggestion is to think of Theseus himself valuing either the repaired or the reassembled version. That's bad for Jubien's account. |
| 13382 | Rearranging the planks as a ship is confusing; we'd say it was the same 'object' with a different arrangement [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: That the planks are rearranged as a ship elevates the sense of mystery, because arrangements matter for ships, but if they had been arranged differently we would have the same intuition - that it still counts as the same object. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: Implausible. Classic case: can I have my pen back? - smashes it to pieces and hands it over with 'there you are' - that's not my pen! - Jubien says it's the same object! - it isn't my pen, and it isn't the same object either! Where is Shelley's skylark? |
| 13379 | If two objects are indiscernible across spacetime, how could we decide whether or not they are the same? [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: If a bit of matter has a qualitatively indistinguishable object located at a later time, with a path of spacetime connecting them, how could we determine they are identical? Neither identity nor diversity follows from qualitative indiscernibility. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 1.3) | |
| A reaction: All these principles expounded by Leibniz were assumed to be timeless, but for identity over time the whole notion of things retaining identity despite changing has to be rethought. Essentialism to the rescue. |
| 13394 | Entailment does not result from mutual necessity; mutual necessity ensures entailment [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: Typically philosophers say that for P to entail Q is for the proposition that all P's are Q's to be necessary. I think this analysis is backwards, and that necessity rests on entailment, not vice versa. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 4.4) | |
| A reaction: His example is that being a horse and being an animal are such that one entails the other. In other words, necessities arise out of property relations (which for Jubien are necessary because the properties are platonically timeless). Wrong. |
| 13391 | Modality concerns relations among platonic properties [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: I think modality has to do with relations involving the abstract part of the world, specifically with relations among (Platonic) properties. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 3.2) | |
| A reaction: [Sider calls Jubien's the 'governance' view, since abstract relations govern the concrete] I take Jubien here (having done a beautiful demolition job on the possible worlds account of modality) to go spectacularly wrong. Modality starts in the concrete. |
| 13374 | To analyse modality, we must give accounts of objects, properties and relations [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: The ultimate analysis of possibility and necessity depends on two important ontological decisions: the choice of an analysis of the intuitive concept of a physical object, and the other is the positing of properties and relations. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], Intro) | |
| A reaction: In the same passage he adopts Quine's view of objects, leading to mereological essentialism, and a Platonic view of properties, based on Lewis's argument for taking some things at face value. One might start with processes and events instead. |
| 13389 | The love of possible worlds is part of the dream that technical logic solves philosophical problems [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: I believe the contemporary infatuation with possible worlds in philosophy stems in part from a tendency to think that technical logic offers silver-bullet solutions to philosophical problems. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 3.2) | |
| A reaction: I would say that the main reason for the infatuation is just novelty. As a technical device it was only invented in the 1960s, so we are in a honeymoon period, as we would be with any new gadget. I can't imagine possible worlds figuring much in 100 years. |
| 13390 | Possible worlds don't explain necessity, because they are a bunch of parallel contingencies [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: The fundamental problem is that in world theory, what passes for necessity is in effect just a bunch of parallel 'contingencies'. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 3.2) | |
| A reaction: Jubien's general complaint is that there is no connection between the possible worlds and the actual world, so they are irrelevant, but this is a nicely different point - that lots of contingent worlds can't add up to necessity. Nice. |
| 17546 | If you changed one of Newton's concepts you would destroy his whole system [Heisenberg on Newton] |
| Full Idea: The connection between the different concept in [Newton's] system is so close that one could generally not change any one of the concepts without destroying the whole system | |
| From: comment on Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Werner Heisenberg - Physics and Philosophy 06 | |
| A reaction: This holistic situation would seem to count against Newton's system, rather than for it. A good system should depend on nature, not on other parts of the system. Compare changing a rule of chess. |
| 17027 | Science deduces propositions from phenomena, and generalises them by induction [Newton] |
| Full Idea: In experimental philosophy, propositions are deduced from the phenomena and are made general by induction. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Bk 3 Gen Schol) | |
| A reaction: Sounds easy, but generalising by induction requires all sorts of assumptions about the stability of natural kinds. Since the kinds are only arrived at by induction, it is not easy to give a proper account here. |
| 17022 | We should admit only enough causes to explain a phenomenon, and no more [Newton] |
| Full Idea: No more causes of natural things should be admitted than are both true and sufficient to explain the phenomena. …For nature does nothing in vain, …and nature is simple and does not indulge in the luxury of superfluous causes. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Bk 3 Rule 1) | |
| A reaction: This emphasises that Ockham's Razor is a rule for physical explanation, and not just one for abstract theories. This is something like Van Fraassen's 'empirical adequacy'. |
| 17021 | Natural effects of the same kind should be assumed to have the same causes [Newton] |
| Full Idea: The causes assigned to natural effects of the same kind must be, so far as possible, the same. For example, the cause of respiration in man and beast. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Bk 3 Rule 2) | |
| A reaction: It is impossible to rule out identical effects from differing causes, but explanation gets much more exciting (because wide-ranging) if Newton's rule is assumed. |
| 17026 | From the phenomena, I can't deduce the reason for the properties of gravity [Newton] |
| Full Idea: I have not as yet been able to deduce from the phenomena the reason for the properties of gravity. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Bk 3 Gen Schol) | |
| A reaction: I take it that giving the reasons for the properties of gravity would be an essentialist explanation. I am struck by the fact that the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson appears to give us a reason why things have mass (i.e. what causes mass). |
| 13396 | Analysing mental concepts points to 'inclusionism' - that mental phenomena are part of the physical [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: We have (physicalist) 'inclusionism' when the mental is included in the physical, and mental phenomena are to be found among physical phenomena. Only inclusionism is compatible with a genuine physicalist analysis of mental concepts. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 4.5) | |
| A reaction: This isn't the thesis of conceptual dualism (which I like), but an interesting accompaniment for it. Jubien is offering this as an alternative to 'reductive' analysis, translating all the mental concepts into physical language. He extends 'physical'. |
| 13377 | First-order logic tilts in favour of the direct reference theory, in its use of constants for objects [Jubien] |
| Full Idea: First-order logic tilts in favor of the direct reference account of proper names by using individual constants to play the intuitive role of names, and by 'interpreting' the constants simply as the individuals that are assigned to them for truth-values. | |
| From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], Intro) | |
| A reaction: This is the kind of challenge to orthodoxy that is much needed at the moment. We have an orthodoxy which is almost a new 'scholasticism', that logic will clarify our metaphysics. Trying to enhance the logic for the job may be a dead end. |
| 7903 | The six perfections are giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom [Nagarjuna] |
| Full Idea: The six perfections are of giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom. | |
| From: Nagarjuna (Mahaprajnaparamitashastra [c.120], 88) | |
| A reaction: What is 'morality', if giving is not part of it? I like patience and vigour being two of the virtues, which immediately implies an Aristotelian mean (which is always what is 'appropriate'). |
| 6421 | Newton's four fundamentals are: space, time, matter and force [Newton, by Russell] |
| Full Idea: Newton works with four fundamental concepts: space, time, matter and force. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Bertrand Russell - My Philosophical Development Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: The ontological challenge is to reduce these in number, presumably. They are, notoriously, defined in terms of one another. |
| 13470 | Mass is central to matter [Newton, by Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: For Newton, mass is central to matter. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by William D. Hart - The Evolution of Logic 2 | |
| A reaction: On reading this, I realise that this is the concept of matter I have grown up with, one which makes it very hard to grasp what the Greeks were thinking of when they referred to matter [hule]. |
| 17020 | An attraction of a body is the sum of the forces of their particles [Newton] |
| Full Idea: The attractions of the bodies must be reckoned by assigning proper forces to their individual particles and then taking the sums of those forces. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], 1.II.Schol) | |
| A reaction: This is using the parts of bodies to give fundamental explanations, rather than invoking substantial forms. The parts need not be atoms. |
| 23012 | Newtonian causation is changes of motion resulting from collisions [Newton, by Baron/Miller] |
| Full Idea: In the Newtonian mechanistic theory of causation, ….something causes a result when it brings about a change of motion. …Causation is a matter of things bumping into one another. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Baron,S/Miller,K - Intro to the Philosophy of Time 6.2.1 | |
| A reaction: This seems to need impenetrability and elasticity as primitives (which is partly what Leibniz's monads are meant to explain). The authors observe that much causation is the result of existences and qualities, rather than motions. |
| 17008 | You have discovered that elliptical orbits result just from gravitation and planetary movement [Newton, by Leibniz] |
| Full Idea: You have made the astonishing discovery that Kepler's ellipses result simply from the conception of attraction or gravitation and passage in a planet. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Gottfried Leibniz - Letter to Newton 1693.03.07 | |
| A reaction: I quote this to show that Newton made 'an astonishing discovery' of a connection in nature, and did not merely produce an equation which described a pattern of behaviour. The simple equation is the proof of the connection. |
| 17010 | We have given up substantial forms, and now aim for mathematical laws [Newton] |
| Full Idea: The moderns - rejecting substantial forms and occult qualities - have undertaken to reduce the phenomena of nature to mathematical laws. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Preface) | |
| A reaction: This is the simplest statement of the apparent anti-Aristotelian revolution in the seventeenth century. |
| 17023 | I am not saying gravity is essential to bodies [Newton] |
| Full Idea: I am by no means asserting that gravity is essential to bodies. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Bk 3 Rule 3) | |
| A reaction: Notice that in Idea 17009 he does not rule out gravity being essential to bodies. This is Newton's intellectual modesty (for which he is not famous). |
| 15866 | Newton reclassified vertical motion as violent, and unconstrained horizontal motion as natural [Newton, by Harré] |
| Full Idea: Following Kepler, Newton assumed a law of universal gravitation, thus reclassifying free fall as a violent motion and, with his First Law, fixing horizontal motion in the absence of constraints as natural | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Rom Harré - Laws of Nature 1 | |
| A reaction: This is in opposition to the Aristotelian view, where the downward motion of physical objects is their natural motion. |
| 15958 | Inertia rejects the Aristotelian idea of things having natural states, to which they return [Newton, by Alexander,P] |
| Full Idea: Newton's principle of inertia implies a rejection of the Aristotelian idea of natural states to which things naturally return. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Peter Alexander - Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles 02.3 | |
| A reaction: I think we can safely say that Aristotle was wrong about this. Aristotle made too much (such as the gravity acting on a thing) intrinsic to the bodies, when the whole context must be seen. |
| 17017 | 1: Bodies rest, or move in straight lines, unless acted on by forces [Newton] |
| Full Idea: Law 1: Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Axioms) | |
| A reaction: This is the new concept of inertia, which revolutionises the picture. Motion itself, which was a profound puzzle for the Greeks, ceases to be a problem by being axiomatised. It is now acceleration which is the the problem. |
| 17018 | 2: Change of motion is proportional to the force [Newton] |
| Full Idea: Law 2: A change in motion is proportional to the motive force impressed and takes place along the straight line in which that force is impressed. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Axioms) | |
| A reaction: This gives the equation 'force = mass x acceleration', where the mass is the constant needed for the equation of proportion. Effectively mass is just the value of a proportion. |
| 17019 | 3: All actions of bodies have an equal and opposite reaction [Newton] |
| Full Idea: Law 3: To any action there is always an opposite and equal reaction; in other words, the action of two bodies upon each other are always equal and always opposite in direction. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Axioms) | |
| A reaction: Is this still true if one body is dented by the impact and the other one isn't? What counts as a 'body'? |
| 20968 | Newton's Third Law implies the conservation of momentum [Newton, by Papineau] |
| Full Idea: Newton's Third Law implies the conservation of momentum, because 'action and reaction' are always equal. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by David Papineau - Thinking about Consciousness App 3 | |
| A reaction: That is, the Third Law implies the First Law (which is the Law of Momentum). |
| 17547 | Newton's idea of force acting over a long distance was very strange [Heisenberg on Newton] |
| Full Idea: Newton introduced a very new and strange hypothesis by assuming a force that acted over a long distance. | |
| From: comment on Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Werner Heisenberg - Physics and Philosophy 06 | |
| A reaction: Why would a force that acted over a short distance be any less mysterious? |
| 20966 | Newton introduced forces other than by contact [Newton, by Papineau] |
| Full Idea: Newton allowed forces other than impact. All the earlier proponents of 'mechanical philosophy' took it as given that all physical action is by contact. ...He thought of 'impressed force' - disembodied entities acting from outside a body. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by David Papineau - Thinking about Consciousness App 3 | |
| A reaction: This is 'action at a distance', which was as bewildering then as quantum theory is now. Newton had a divinity to impose laws of nature from the outside. In some ways we have moved back to the old view, with the actions of bosons and fields. |
| 20967 | Newton's laws cover the effects of forces, but not their causes [Newton, by Papineau] |
| Full Idea: Newton has a general law about the effects of his forces, ...but there is no corresponding general principle about the causes of such forces. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by David Papineau - Thinking about Consciousness App 3 | |
| A reaction: I'm not sure that Einstein gives a cause of gravity either. This seems to be part of the scientific 'instrumentalist' view of nature, which is incredibly useful but very superficial. |
| 16708 | Newton's forces were accused of being the scholastics' real qualities [Pasnau on Newton] |
| Full Idea: Newton's reliance on the notion of force was widely criticised as marking in effect a return to real qualities. | |
| From: comment on Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 19.7 | |
| A reaction: The objection is to forces that are separate from the bodies they act on. This is one of the reasons why modern metaphysics needs the concept of an intrinsic disposition or power, placing the forces in the stuff. |
| 13153 | I am studying the quantities and mathematics of forces, not their species or qualities [Newton] |
| Full Idea: I consider in this treatise not the species of forces and their physical qualities, but their quantities and mathematical proportions. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], 1.1.11 Sch) | |
| A reaction: Note that Newton is not denying that one might contemplate the species and qualities of forces, as I think Leibniz tried to do, thought he didn't cast any detailed light on them. It is the gap between science and metaphysics. |
| 12724 | The aim is to discover forces from motions, and use forces to demonstrate other phenomena [Newton] |
| Full Idea: The basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Pref 1st ed), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 4 | |
| A reaction: This fits in with the description-of-regularity approach to laws which Newton had acquired from Galileo, rather than the essentialist attitude to forces of Leibniz, though Newton has smatterings of essentialism. |
| 13593 | Newton showed that falling to earth and orbiting the sun are essentially the same [Newton, by Ellis] |
| Full Idea: Newton showed that the apparently different kinds of processes of falling towards the earth and orbiting the sun are essentially the same. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Brian Ellis - Scientific Essentialism 3.08 | |
| A reaction: I quote this to illustrate Newton's permanent achievement in science, in the face of a tendency to say that he was 'outmoded' by the advent of General Relativity. Newton wasn't interestingly wrong. He was very very right. |
| 20969 | Early Newtonians could not formulate conservation of energy, having no concept of potential energy [Newton, by Papineau] |
| Full Idea: A barrier to the formulation of an energy conservation principle by early Newtonians was their lack of a notion of potential energy. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by David Papineau - Thinking about Consciousness App 3 n5 | |
| A reaction: Interestingly, the notions of potentiality and actuality were central to Aristotle, but Newtonians had just rejected all of that. |
| 17013 | Absolute space is independent, homogeneous and immovable [Newton] |
| Full Idea: Absolute space, of its own nature without reference to anything external, always remains homogeneous and immovable. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Def 8 Schol) | |
| A reaction: This would have to be a stipulation, rather than an assertion of fact, since whether space is 'immovable' is either incoherent or unknowable. |
| 22915 | Newton needs intervals of time, to define velocity and acceleration [Newton, by Le Poidevin] |
| Full Idea: Both Newton's First and Second Laws of motion make implicit reference to equal intervals of time. For a body is moving with constant velocity if it covers the same distance in a series of equal intervals (and similarly with acceleration). | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Robin Le Poidevin - Travels in Four Dimensions 01 'Time' | |
| A reaction: [Le Poidevin spells out the acceleration point] You can see why he needs time to be real, if measured chunks of it figure in his laws. |
| 22893 | Newton thought his laws of motion needed absolute time [Newton, by Bardon] |
| Full Idea: Newton's reason for embracing absolute space, time and motion was that he thought that universal laws of motions were describable only in such terms. Because actual motions are irregular, the time of universal laws of motion cannot depend on them. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by Adrian Bardon - Brief History of the Philosophy of Time 3 'Replacing' | |
| A reaction: I'm not sure of the Einsteinian account of the laws of motion. |
| 17012 | Time exists independently, and flows uniformly [Newton] |
| Full Idea: Absolute, true, and mathematical time, in and of itself and of its own nature, without reference to anything external, flows uniformly and by another name is called duration. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Def 8 Schol) | |
| A reaction: This invites the notorious question of, if time flows uniformly, how fast time flows. Maybe we should bite the bullet and say 'one second per second', or maybe we should say 'this fact is beyond our powers of comprehension'. |
| 14012 | Absolute time, from its own nature, flows equably, without relation to anything external [Newton] |
| Full Idea: Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably, without relation to anything external. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], I:Schol after defs), quoted by Craig Bourne - A Future for Presentism 5.1 | |
| A reaction: I agree totally with this, and I don't care what any modern relativity theorists say. It think Shoemaker's argument gives wonderful support to Newton. |
| 22954 | Newtonian mechanics does not distinguish negative from positive values of time [Newton, by Coveney/Highfield] |
| Full Idea: In Newton's laws of motion time is squared, so a negative value gives the same result as a positive value, which means Newtonian mechanics cannot distinguish between the two directions of time. | |
| From: report of Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687]) by P Coveney / R Highfield - The Arrow of Time 2 'anatomy' | |
| A reaction: Maybe Newton just forgot to mention that negative values were excluded. (Or was he unaware of the sequence of negative integers?). Too late now - he's done it. |
| 17015 | If there is no uniform motion, we cannot exactly measure time [Newton] |
| Full Idea: It is possible that there is no uniform motion by which time may have an exact measure. All motions can be accelerated and retarded, but the flow of absolute time cannot be changed. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Def 8 Schol) |
| 17025 | If a perfect being does not rule the cosmos, it is not God [Newton] |
| Full Idea: A being, however perfect, without dominion is not the Lord God. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Bk 3 Gen Schol) |
| 17024 | The elegance of the solar system requires a powerful intellect as designer [Newton] |
| Full Idea: This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. | |
| From: Isaac Newton (Principia Mathematica [1687], Bk 3 Gen Schol) |