tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post116027984733286438..comments2024-03-28T02:29:26.853-07:00Comments on Obscure and Confused Ideas: Aristotle's natural motion and modern inertial motionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-1163657532874904552006-11-15T22:12:00.000-08:002006-11-15T22:12:00.000-08:00Greg (if I may),Interesting post.The intentional s...Greg (if I may),<BR/><BR/>Interesting post.<BR/><BR/>The intentional sense of <I>telos</I> (i.e., "purpose" or "goal") should be minimized or ignored altoghether when the <I>telos</I> of a non-intentional substance is being considered. For while Aristotle does routinely draw analogies between intentional and non-intentional motions, such analogies are not necessary.<BR/><BR/>Instead, <I>telos</I> or end should be understood in the sense of terminus (Aristotle does say that the usual result of a motion is its end). I think the biological development of an embryo is an excellent example to illustrate the point.<BR/><BR/>It is an undeniable fact that the changes undergone by the embryo are according to a certain trajectory, so to speak, viz., the adult organism. That trajectory is inherent in the structure of the nascent organism, i.e., in its form or shape (Aristotle uses <I>morphe</I> more often that <I>idea</I>; the basic meaning of both is shape, but <I>morphe</I> suggests this more than <I>idea</I> because the former was not used by Plato).<BR/><BR/>It is important to note that, for Aristotle, form and end are ultimately the same. The end is the form as terminus, i.e., the shape that the fulfilled motion will take.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-1160548630473490302006-10-10T23:37:00.000-07:002006-10-10T23:37:00.000-07:00I think you're right. Interestingly the Lagrangia...I think you're right. Interestingly the Lagrangian formulations of Newton's laws perhaps make telos even more explicit. They are cast in a form that the system tries to reduce the difference in kinds of energy. <BR/><BR/>I remember back when first doing advanced mechanics and discovering Euler and Lagrange just how different the philosophical spin on things was. The Hamiltonian offers yet an other philosophical spin if one "reads it" literally. Yet all the formulations are mathematically equivalent.<BR/><BR/>And of course one can do similar things with quantum theory. Although I've never found trying to make things more "Newtonian" terribly satisfying. But Feynman diagrams in a sense end up being the Lagrangian again whereas traditional QM is typically variations on the Hamiltonian.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.com