The Physics, Meaning, Lectures On Nature

In his book, The Nature Principle, Richard Louv talks about how nature is a natural resource to many of the problems we as humans are facing today, if we would just go outside and take advantage of it. Louv talks about how we (as American’s) have increased our use of technology vastly in the last ten years. While this is not comply bad, it does have negative effects on our physical, emotional and spiritual being if not kept in check. Louv goes on to share that, “the more high tech we become, the more nature we need” (Louv, 2011). Think about a time you have sat in your office for hours on end, working on your computer, at last lunch time came and you went outside for just five minutes because you forgot something in your car. In just those few minutes of going outside, you might have noticed a slight increase in your happiness level. Can you then venture to understand how this could be applied to children, or even increased with taking more time to enjoy nature? Richard Louv challenges his readers to not only be in nature, but to live with nature (Louv, 2011) .

Aristotle’s model by today’s standards can easily be picked apart, but at the time, it was the best explanation that could be made with so little technology and insight. Although his theories have long since been replaced, they created a base for future scientists to work off of and challenge. Over time many great scientists began to question Aristotle’s theories. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), for example, contested the absolute significance of the earth, and he did not agree that it should be viewed as the center of the entire universe (Lizhi & Youquan, 1987). He plotted the earth at the center of the universe and created a heliocentric system just as mathematically complicated as the Ptolemaic system (one that also improved on Aristotle’s), but it explained a number of anomalies, including resolving the issue of retrograde motion (Ede, A. & Cormack, L., 2004). The problem was that Aristotle’s physics of ‘natural motion’ fell apart without the earth in the center of everything.

This will lead to an explanation of motion, the development of the calculus, and the establishment of basic laws of modern physics.

Newton’s writings have had a profound effect on modern day science, astronomy, physics, as well as scientific reason. His discoveries and laws set a foundation of universal guidelines that enabled others to conduct experiments based on their own observations, while he also explained how the natural world functioned. In his ‘Principia’ he listed his set of four rules of scientific reasoning. The four rules include: 1) we are to admit no more causes of natural things such as both true and sufficient to explain their experiences. 2) The same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes. 3) Qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal. 4) Propositions deduced from observation of phenomena contradict them (wolframresearch). This method of reasoning set the framework for the quest of answers during the Enlightenment. Today his four laws are known as the scientific

This question defines the nature of Aristotle’s inquiries, at least for a large part of the Metaphysics, and it thus offers a fourth account of the study or science of metaphysics.“The science of first principles, the study of being qua being, theology, the investigation into substance – four compatible descriptions of the same discipline? Perhaps there is no one discipline which can be identified as Aristotelian Metaphysics? And perhaps this thought should not disturb us: we need only recall that the metaphysics was composed by Andronicus rather than by Aristotle. But the four descriptions do have at least one thing in common: they are dark and obscure” (Ross, 1996, p174).

Aristotle’s understanding of the four causes begins with the assumption that is present in all Greek philosophy, the notion of pre-existing matter. He observed the world around him and noticed that it was in a state of constant motion, a movement from potentiality to

The discovery of these laws, laid down a basic foundation for the physics of motion. Newton's three laws of gravity changed the way in which the world was perceived, because of their accuracy in describing many unexplained phenomenons.3 They explained what happens as a result of different variables, but most importantly, they explained why and how these actions happen. Like many of Isaac Newtons ideas and theories, the three laws of motion had a profound impact on the scientific community. The three laws of motions provided an explanation for almost everything in macro physics. Macro Physics is the branch of physics that deals with physical objects large enough to be observed and treated directly.4 This allowed for many new advancements in physics because the foundation had been build for others to develop upon. Isaac Newton published these findings in his revolutionary book “The Principa”. The Principa was revolutionary book because it organized the bulk of his life’s work, More importantly the

In Metaphysics XII, Aristotle elaborates on a need for a “first mover that initiates motion without being moved” (Met. 12.7, 1072a26). This primary, or unmoved mover, he believes is the source of all motion in the universe. In this essay, I will explain his conception of such a mover. I will then elaborate on how this unmoved mover initiates motion. Finally, I will explain his rationale for believing there is such a mover.

Aristotle has formulated an economical and clear argument, but the passage that contains it fails to connect all the premises to other parts of the text to lend them supporting arguments. Aristotle extended his approach of starting from what is commonly believed to even this human function argument which is crucial to the whole work. As a result, many readers may be left unconvinced.

In order to attempt to trace the origins of the modern science that we now refer to

Plato, a man who believed by just thinking about it, you could understand and achieve fully, trained Aristotle in philosophy. Aristotle did not agree on Plato’s belief, and soon came up with his own. He believed that in order to understand, you must observe what is being studied by looking, listening or touching it. Aristotle’s method of studying is now the base of contemporary science. Modern scientists are now engineering more efficient and precise ways of observing. In conclusion, Aristotle awoke the world with the study of live, which grew to the study of modern science of phycology.

The theory of the Four Causes refers to an influential Aristotelian principle whereby the causes of movement and/or change are categorized allowing us to have knowledge of our existence and everything around us. Aristotle wrote that "we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its ‘why’, that is to say, its cause." He provided an account of the operation of various individual substances in the universe. Distinctions were made between things of two sorts: those that are contingent on something else’s movement and those that necessary in their own movement. Aristotle not only suggested a proper description of these but also attempted to answer particular questions such as ‘Why does this event happen?’ and ‘Why is this object as

When discussing probability, a text of my previous reading came to mind. Within the lecture Physics II, much of Aristotle’s work is concerned with providing a definition for various events and subjects, and as such, identifying the types of causes for each event is an important step in accomplishing this goal. Aristotle specifically investigates the role of luck and chance as causes of change. Although we commonly speak of luck or chance as being a cause, Aristotle purposefully refrains from including them in his explanation of causes. When giving an account of our observable world, I agree with Aristotle in that there is no place for luck and chance as causes of events, yet I believe they do have a role, namely in predicting future events.

Knowledge can be accepted or refuted, hence what determines accepted knowledge? I believe ‘accepted knowledge’ is that which has been tested whereby sufficient evidence has been collected to support certain knowledge claims. However, it is important to consider times when knowledge has been refuted. Despite strong belief that we possess objective facts, through research and technological progresses, such facts become re-interpreted in light of new evidence and discoveries. Personally, discarded knowledge refers to theories or laws being dismissed as new-found information proves more accurate. However, knowledge can also be amended as it is evolves. Knowledge is often discarded or amended due to technological progresses or changing social trends. Taking both a natural and a human science in IB, I feel that knowledge is more readily discarded in the natural sciences whereas in the human sciences knowledge is amended as certain theories evolve. This suggests that knowledge is not static hence leading to the main knowledge issue which will be explored: “To what extent is knowledge within the human and natural sciences provisional?

Act and potency and their distinction are an important and fundamental theory in philosophy. It helps approach questions in metaphysics concerning substance, essence, and causation. In this essay, I will be using this theory of act and potency to show how the four causes and the theory relate to each other. Thus, the four causes: formal cause, material cause, efficient cause, and final cause are related to each other and can be explained through the theory and concepts of act and potency.