|
13169
|
I call Aristotle's entelechies 'primitive forces', which originate activity [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Forms establish the true general principles of nature. Aristotle calls them 'first entelechies'; I call them, perhaps more intelligibly, 'primitive forces', which contain not only act or the completion of possibility, but also an original activity.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (New system of communication of substances [1695], p.139)
|
|
A reaction:
As in Idea 13168, I take Leibniz to be unifying Aristotle with modern science, and offering an active view of nature in tune with modern scientific essentialism. Laws arise from primitive force, and are not imposed from without.
|
|
13170
|
The analysis of things leads to atoms of substance, which found both composition and action [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are only atoms of substance, that is, real unities absolutely destitute of parts, which are the source of actions, the first absolute principles of the composition of things, and, as it were, the final elements in the analysis of substantial things.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (New system of communication of substances [1695], p.142)
|
|
A reaction:
I like this because it addresses the pure issue of the identity of an individuated object, but also links it with an active view of nature, and not some mere inventory of objects.
|
|
10932
|
If it is possible 'for all I know' then it is 'epistemically possible' [Rami]
|
|
Full Idea:
There is 'epistemic possibility' when it is 'for all I know'. That is, P is epistemically possible for agent A just in case P is consistent with what A knows.
|
|
From:
Adolph Rami (Essential vs Accidental Properties [2008], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
Two problems: maybe 'we' know, and A knows we know, but A doesn't know. And maybe someone knows, but we are not sure about that, which seems to introduce a modal element into the knowing. If someone knows it's impossible, it's impossible.
|
|
8412
|
A causal interaction is when two processes intersect, and correlated modifications persist afterwards [Salmon]
|
|
Full Idea:
When two processes intersect, and they undergo correlated modifications which persist after the intersection, I shall say that the intersection is a causal interaction. I take this as a fundamental causal concept.
|
|
From:
Wesley Salmon (Causality: Production and Propagation [1980], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
There may be a problem individuating processes, just as there is for events. I like this approach to causation, which is ontologically sparse, and fits in with the scientific worldview. Change of properties sounds precise, but isn't. Stick to processes.
|
|
8413
|
Cause must come first in propagations of causal interactions, but interactions are simultaneous [Salmon]
|
|
Full Idea:
In a typical cause-effect situation (a 'propagation') cause must precede effect, for propagation over a finite time interval is an essential feature. In an 'interaction', an intersection of processes resulting in change, we have simultaneity.
|
|
From:
Wesley Salmon (Causality: Production and Propagation [1980], §8)
|
|
A reaction:
This takes the direction of time as axiomatic, and quite right too. Salmon isn't addressing the real difficulty, though, which is that the resultant laws are usually held to be time-reversible, which is a bit of a puzzle.
|
|
8411
|
Instead of localised events, I take enduring and extended processes as basic to causation [Salmon]
|
|
Full Idea:
I propose to approach causality by taking processes rather than events as basic entities. Events are relatively localised in space and time, while processes have much greater temporal duration, and, in many cases, much greater spatial extent.
|
|
From:
Wesley Salmon (Causality: Production and Propagation [1980], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
This strikes me as an incredibly promising proposal, not just in our understanding of causation, but for our general metaphysics and understanding of nature. See Idea 4931, for example. Vague events and processes blend into one another.
|
|
13167
|
We need the metaphysical notion of force to explain mechanics, and not just extended mass [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Considering 'extended mass' alone was not sufficient to explain the principles of mechanics and the laws of nature, but it is necessary to make use of the notion of 'force', which is very intelligible, despite belonging in the domain of metaphysics.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (New system of communication of substances [1695], p.139)
|
|
A reaction:
We may find it surprising that force is a metaphysical concept, but that is worth pondering. It is a mysterious notion within physics. Notice the emphasis on what explains, and what is intelligible. He sees Descartes's system as too passive.
|