Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    An appeal to the ontological difference between motion an... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An appeal to the ontological difference between motion and rest as intrinsic states can distinguish Descartes' fourth and fifth collision rules

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Descartes holds that motion and rest are different intrinsic states of bodies
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is an ontological difference between a body undergoing translation with respect to its contiguous neighborhood and one that is not
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.In rule four the large body is really at rest, and in rule five the large body is really in motion
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's equivalence of hypotheses argument establishes that no observable or mechanical difference can distinguish absolute rest from absolute motion in collision scenarios.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any ontological distinction between rest and motion that lacks causal-mechanical consequence cannot do explanatory work in a physics that derives collision outcomes from the quantity of motion transferred.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Descartes' own conservation principle tracks scalar quantity of motion, not intrinsic rest-states, so the alleged ontological difference is causally idle within his dynamical framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes himself defines motion relationally in the Principles II.25 as translation relative to contiguous bodies, making 'intrinsic rest' incoherent within his own framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If motion is defined purely by relational facts about contiguous neighborhoods, then rules four and five describe identical physical situations, and the asymmetric outcomes violate Descartes' own relationist commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Causation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Any ontological distinction between rest and motion that lacks causal-mechanical...Descartes himself defines motion relationally in the Principles II.25 as transla...Descartes holds that motion and rest are different intrinsic states of bodiesDescartes' own conservation principle tracks scalar quantity of motion, not intr...
    +5 moreShow less
    If motion is defined purely by relational facts about contiguous neighborhoods, ...In rule four the large body is really at rest, and in rule five the large body i...Leibniz's equivalence of hypotheses argument establishes that no observable or m...There is an ontological difference between a body undergoing translation with re...This intrinsic difference is sufficient to distinguish the two collision scenari...

    Similar

    Descartes holds that motion and rest are different intrinsic states of...86%This intrinsic difference is sufficient to distinguish the two collisi...80%Descartes holds that rest and motion are different bodily states.78%Descartes' fourth and fifth collision rules are relationally incompati...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: descartes-physics
    View source passageHide passage
    As discussed in previous sections, there are various ways in which Descartes’ laws of motion violate a strict relationism. One of the most problematic instances involves the relational compatibility of the fourth and fifth collision rules. Whereas the fourth rule concludes that a large object remains at rest during impact with a smaller moving body, such that the smaller body is deflected back along its initial path, the fifth rule concludes that a large body will move a smaller stationary objec
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit