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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that An appeal to the ontological difference between motion and rest as intrinsic states can distinguish Descartes' fourth and fifth collision rules

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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