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
    The medium is not a necessary condition for motion, but o... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The medium is not a necessary condition for motion, but only provides resistance

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's own account in Physics IV requires a mover and a moved, but the medium serves neither role essentially—it merely impedes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ibn Bajja's analysis shows that a body in void would still traverse distance in finite time, grounding velocity in the mover-to-resistance ratio.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If medium were a necessary condition, motion in void would be metaphysically impossible rather than merely hypothetically faster—yet no contradiction follows from imagining it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Avempace's mathematical treatment anticipates Galileo: net velocity equals the ratio of motive force to the body's own natural resistance, not to medium density.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The varying velocities in air versus water are adequately explained by differing resistances subtracted from a base motive power, making medium contingent not constitutive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Different velocities of a stone through air versus water are caused only by the different density of the medium
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The difference in velocity is not connatural to the medium itself
      ?

      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

    Related

    Aristotle's own account in Physics IV requires a mover and a moved, but the medi...Avempace's mathematical treatment anticipates Galileo: net velocity equals the r...Different velocities of a stone through air versus water are caused only by the ...Ibn Bajja's analysis shows that a body in void would still traverse distance in ...
    +3 moreShow less
    If medium were a necessary condition, motion in void would be metaphysically imp...The difference in velocity is not connatural to the medium itselfThe varying velocities in air versus water are adequately explained by differing...

    Similar

    Treating the field as a mere extensive medium is insufficient to accou...76%No satisfactory solution to the problem of motion can be given while t...76%The difference in velocity is not connatural to the medium itself75%When resistance from an external source is sufficient, the mover's inf...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ibn-bajja
    View source passageHide passage
    Aristotle rejected the possibility of motion in the void because the medium was essential to natural movement at finite speed (Phys. IV.8). John Philoponus had already expressed the view that the medium is not a necessary condition, but only provides resistance. The different velocities with which the stone passes through the air or the water is only caused by the different density of the medium; it is not connatural to the medium. As a proof that motion without any medium, namely, through a voi
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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