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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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