At first glance, Isaac Newton’s bucket argument seems invulnerable to scrutiny. I never found the argument to be truly convincing, but like Newton’s supporters and perhaps a few of his critics, I possessed no means of successfully refuting it. In fact, proponents of the bucket argument have been so confident in its fortification that even now, in the 21st century, they continue to cite the bucket as undeniable evidence of absolute motion and, therefore, absolute space. One such supporter is Robin Le Poidevin, who revisits the bucket argument in Travels in Four Dimensions to defend the experiment against further scrutiny. However, in doing so, Le Poidevin inadvertently introduces to the experiment a new criticism that he does not fully discredit and that I now find to be an effective means of rejecting the entire argument. He blatantly states that, in the experiment, the motion of the water could be relative to “itself at earlier times,” but also that the relationist cannot substantiate this relative motion in a void using relative time, which is merely a system of relations (Le Poidevin 49). This may be true, but Le Poidevin fails to account for absolute time in the void, which can in fact be used to measure the water’s motion.
Let us review Newton’s bucket argument, which relies on the existence of absolute motion to prove the existence of absolute space. Assume that there is a plane of existence completely devoid of matter—call this plane a “void”—save for a bucket full of water and a rope tied to the bucket. The argument is as follows: Firstly, in an instance where the water displays the effects of centrifugal force, the water is not moving relative to the bucket or any material object. Secondly, all centrifugal forces result f...
... middle of paper ...
...r, Newton’s bucket experiment does not prove that absolute space exists because it relies too heavily on absolute motion, and it would be in the best interest of Newton’s followers to craft a more reasonable argument for absolute space. They can begin by formulating a better argument for absolute motion, if they so choose. In scrutinizing the bucket argument and the use of absolute motion to prove the existence of absolute space, I only hope to generate stronger hypotheses that support the existence of absolute space or, at the very least, draw nearer to defining what space truly is.
Works Cited
Le Poidevin, Robin. Travels in Four Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. Web. 13 Feb. 2014.
Leibniz, Gottfried. The Relational Theory of Space and Time. Print.
Newton, Issac. Absolute and Relative Space, Time, and Motion. PDF. 13 Feb. 2014
However, David Hume, succeeds in objecting this argument by claiming that the experience is a necessary factor for understanding the creation of the universe. Lastly, I argued that Paley’s argument was not sufficient for proving God’s existence with the argument by design because we cannot assume the world will comply and work the way we wish
For the Science Reader project, I read Black Holes, Wormholes, and Time Machines by Jim Al-Khalili. Interested in time travel and the secrets of space, I chose this book with hopes of better understanding our universe.
Parmenides of Elea once presented the expression ex nihilo nihil fit, which translates to nothing comes from nothing for one of his many theses. The Cosmological Argument, an argument of the posteriori category, meaning that it requires data based on past experiences, argues for the existence of God with this type of expression at its core. By attempting to prove how the universe must be influenced by an independent being that has godlike qualities, cosmological arguments suggest that it is rational to believe in an omnipotent being and its accountability of creating the universe.
As such, I believe that I have provided potential alternatives to the question that the argument from vagueness attempts to solve. While the arguments that I have provided for the alternatives are prone to errors, the goal is to show that it is possible to entertain such alternatives as opposed to accepting universalism, and hence four-dimensionalism. As the non-temporal argument suffers from this weakness, so too does the temporal one.
from Motion, tries to prove the existence of God as the first mover which is unmoved.
Krauss, Lawrence Maxwell, and Richard Dawkins. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. New York, NY: Free, 2012. 7-8. Print.
This shows the idea, that if there would be a void or an empty space then "what is" would move into it. Hence, there is no void. Because "what is" fills up this space completely. "Since it is all alike" volume or density is continuous everywhere. Since it is not divisible there is no void between "what is". Also "what is" itself has no void in it. If there were void or space in one object, compared to a more denser object these particles would not "...
... obstacle that most people who wish to travel in time must face—the universe can only hold a certain amount of matter in order to remain stable. The article then discusses some theories of time travel, which involves the understanding of quantum mechanics and quantum realities. The article then breaks the idea of time travel into 4 sub-theories: fate, alternate universe, success, and the observer effect. Of all the theories, I was most interested in the “observer effect” theory. The “observer effect” theory stipulates that anyone who travels into the past runs the risk of altering any important events of history. It is possible to kill a relative if traveling into the past. This article helped answer many of my questions about time travel, but I wished it would have provided the readers with more theories to help extend its belief that time travel is possible.
The ideas of classical physics, which started with Copernicus and ended with Newton’s laws on motion and gravity, were widely accepted by European society in the years leading up to the Revolution in Physics. The beliefs of classical physics rested on five cornerstones. The first cornerstone was the existence of absolute space and the second cornerstone was the existence of absolute time. "In the Newtonian system bits of matter moved in absolute space and time"(Baumer 460). Of these two cornerstones, space was considered to be more important because it was immutable and because every change in the motion of matter indisputably involved a change in space as well. In contrast, change did occur in time, but unlike space, time did not itsel...
Early elements of the Cosmological Argument were developed by the world renowned philosophers Plato and Aristotle between the years 400 and 200 BC (Boeree). Medieval philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas expanded upon their ideas in the late 13th Century when he wrote, “The Five Ways.” Since then the Cosmological Argument has become one of the most widely accepted and criticized arguments for the existence of God. My objective in this paper is to explain why the Cosmological Argument is a reasonable argument for the existence of God, the importance of understanding that it is an inductive a posteriori argument, and defend my position against common opposing arguments.
Merali, Zeeya. “Time Travel, And How To Achieve it.” New scientist 196.2627 (2007): 8. MAS
In conclusion, the Knowledge Argument is shown to be a valid argument, but not sound. I explained all the premises that went along with the Knowledge Argument and what problem affects physicalism. I also examined and displayed Lewis’s reply to the Knowledge Argument, and whether Lewis’s is convincing or not. Overall, I believe that almost everything in this universe is physical. The Knowledge Argument will always be known as one of the most significant arguments in the philosophy of mind.
Isaac Newton had a new approach to the existence of space and time that contradicted that of great philosophers such as Leibniz and Descates. Newton felt that space and time are infinite and independent of the body and mind, that the bodies and minds of the world existed in space and time and even without the presence of physical bodies there still would be space and time. He stated there “are positions in space and time which are independent of the material entities” that existed in them and that the principles of empty space and time are possible. In the Prolegomena, Immanuel Kant seems to have agreed in part with Newton’s views of space and time and attempted to support Newton by presenting two forms of judgment that would maintain Newton’s thesis, these being judgments of perception and judgments of experience.
I am not saying that Newton’s and other theories like it are wrong, I am saying that we put too much faith in something that is not absolute, unfortunately we have no other choice.
He explained that if a bucket of water is hung by a twisted cord and then released, the bucket will spin in relation to the water and the observer. As the bucket keeps spinning, the water’s surface becomes concave but the concavity of the water shows rotation that is relatively at rest to the pail. Meaning; absolute space remain similar will always in relation to anything external. Sir Isaac Newton’s absolute space and absolute time claim were accepted at the time; however, as time evolved, theories have too. The seventeenth-century ideas of Newton differed with the twentieth century views of Einstein on time and space.