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
    Descartes' fourth and fifth collision rules are relationa... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Descartes' fourth and fifth collision rules are relationally incompatible, violating strict relationism

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

    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.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's relational mechanics demands that all physical outcomes be fully determined by relative positions and velocities between bodies alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descartes' Rule 4 assigns rest a privileged causal power to resist motion, treating rest as an intrinsic absolute state rather than a relational one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If rest possesses absolute causal efficacy absent from motion, then identical relative velocities between bodies yield asymmetric outcomes, violating Leibnizian relationism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mach's principle of the relational equivalence of motion entails that only velocity differences between bodies, not their individual states, can be physically significant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rules 4 and 5 assign different outcomes to collisions sharing identical relative velocity magnitudes but differing only in which body is labeled 'moving' versus 'at rest'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This asymmetry constitutes a frame-dependent absolute distinction that no coherent relationist ontology, from Mach through modern Humean supervenience, can accommodate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The fourth collision rule concludes that a large object at rest remains at rest when struck by a smaller moving body, deflecting the smaller body back
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The fifth collision rule concludes that a large moving body transfers motion to a smaller stationary body until both travel at the same speed
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.From a relational standpoint, both rules describe the same type of collision — a small and large body with identical relative motion between them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Causation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Descartes' Rule 4 assigns rest a privileged causal power to resist motion, treat...From a relational standpoint, both rules describe the same type of collision — a...If rest possesses absolute causal efficacy absent from motion, then identical re...If two situations are relationally identical, they should produce identical outc...
    +6 moreShow less
    Leibniz's relational mechanics demands that all physical outcomes be fully deter...Mach's principle of the relational equivalence of motion entails that only veloc...Rules 4 and 5 assign different outcomes to collisions sharing identical relative...The fifth collision rule concludes that a large moving body transfers motion to ...The fourth collision rule concludes that a large object at rest remains at rest ...This asymmetry constitutes a frame-dependent absolute distinction that no cohere...

    Similar

    From a relational standpoint, both rules describe the same type of col...82%In elucidating the fourth collision rule, Descartes states that body B...82%The fourth collision rule concludes that a large object at rest remain...81%The fifth collision rule concludes that a large moving body transfers ...80%

    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 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit