Jump to content

Why is the idea of emptiness important to ideology?


Recommended Posts

It is easy to see that since ancient times, the idea of emptiness has been introduced, and especially by religious ideologists. Atomists, Buddhists, and Christians, and in modern science, the reincarnation of Newtonianism in Einsteinism and quantum mechanics, introduced practically administratively, after the complete collapse of Newtonianism in the 19th century, and even by repressive measures.

Why is this important to them?

As far as I remember, Aristotle considered Newton's first law absurd, he used this argument as proof of the impossibility of emptiness, saying that if there was emptiness, then bodies would move endlessly

 

Edited by altaylar2000
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

As far as I remember, Aristotle considered Newton's first law absurd,

Aristotle lived ~ 2000 years before Newton..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

used this argument as proof of the impossibility of emptiness, saying that if there was emptiness, then bodies would move endlessly

Nonsense..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Nonsense..

"No one can say why it would rather stop here and not there? Therefore, it must either rest or move endlessly, unless something stronger is interfered with."

 

This is translate of argument against emptiness, if you want you can find it on English version of Aristotel's phisics in canonically version, it's hard to me because I am not english-speaking

Aristotle here uses proof by contradiction, saying that if there were emptiness of atomists there would be a law of inertia

Edited by altaylar2000
Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans have an intuitive idea of what nothingness means, so it makes sense it would show up in philosophies and explanations. And I think you're equating a lot of different kinds of "nothings." "Nothing" in the atomic sense is much different than "nothing" in a Buddhist sense. It feels like you're trying to cram a lot of differently shaped pegs into one single hole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "emptiness" in natural sciences is called vacuum. A vacuum is a state in which in some volume there is very small number of atoms.

The perfect vacuum is only theoretical. Through cosmic space there are flying billions of particles e.g. photons and neutrinos per second. Without them, it would not possible to see distant stars.

 

 

The inventor of the first vacuum pump, Otto von Guericke, disproved Aristotle hypothesis:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Guericke

"With his experiments Guericke disproved the hypothesis of "horror vacui", that nature abhors a vacuum. Aristotle (e.g. in Physics IV 6–9) had argued against the existence of the void and his views commanded near-universal endorsement by philosophers and scientists up to the 17th century. Guericke showed that substances were not pulled by a vacuum, but were pushed by the pressure of the surrounding fluids.[5]"

 

Edited by Sensei
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ericchiriboga said:

Humans have an intuitive idea of what nothingness means, so it makes sense it would show up in philosophies and explanations. And I think you're equating a lot of different kinds of "nothings." "Nothing" in the atomic sense is much different than "nothing" in a Buddhist sense. It feels like you're trying to cram a lot of differently shaped pegs into one single hole.

This "intuitive idea" arises from the erroneous everyday view of things, such as "an empty glass".
The main difference, despite all the particulars of the interpretation of emptiness, is whether philosophers recognize the existence of emptiness or not, and not how each individual school interprets it.

_________

Newton was a Christian preacher. Early Christianity was in many ways identical to Buddhism, they talked about samsara and about tolerance. The Christian cult of foolishness and monasticism is not much different from Buddhist and Jain ideas

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, altaylar2000 said:

As far as I remember, Aristotle considered Newton's first law absurd, he used this argument as proof of the impossibility of emptiness, saying that if there was emptiness, then bodies would move endlessly

Aristotle was understandably wrong in some notions, due to the knowledge level of his time, but he was certainly not stupid.

In particular he recognised the notion of a contradiction, which your statement is.

If there are bodies, movable or otherwise, there cannot be emptiness as well without further qualification.

Aristotle was also familiar with sponges, so he was familiar with the pores or spaces within a sponge, and whether they were empty or full or partly full of water.

 

Why do you keep posting these ridiculous threads when you have been 'advised' not to by a Moderator ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, studiot said:

he was certainly not stupid.

Of course, because his ideas in the progressive 19th century were not thrown into the dustbin of history, unlike Newtonian scholasticism

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.