Avempace's conclusion that natural and violent motion belong to categorically distinct causal regimes entails that a single proportionality schema cannot govern both without equivocation.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Avempace(as the philosopher whose conclusion is being discussed): A medieval Islamic philosopher (also known as Ibn Bajjah) who lived in Spain around the 1100s and wrote about how things move and change in the natural world.
Causal regimes(as distinct categories for explaining motion): Different systems or sets of rules that explain what causes things to happen; in this case, Avempace says natural and violent motion follow completely different rules about what causes them.
Equivocation(Lewis diagnoses the ontological argument as equivocating on 'a being than which nothing greater can be conceived is possible'.): A fallacy in which a key term or phrase is used in two different senses within the same argument, making an invalid inference appear valid.
Proportionality schema(as a single rule that might or might not apply to both types of motion): A mathematical rule or formula that shows how different factors (like force and distance) relate to each other to produce an effect.

Based on where you are in your exploration