Legion Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 We will here attempt to make more explicit Aristotle's four causes and highlight the concept of natural entailment. We can think about making a chair or making a statue out of the same log of wood. We can do this in the hopes of making clearer in our own minds the entailments associated therewith. In both cases the basic material transformation will be the same. We will pare down a log into either a chair or a statue. As you might guess an appropriate tool for this job is a chainsaw. We will utilize a set of instructions or we will know by some other means the appropriate application and use of the chainsaw to achieve these ends. As we decide which to make, either chair or statue, we may want to consider to what purpose we will want to put our artifact. That is, we may wish to think about the intended function of our artifact. After a moment's consideration and our decision being made, we will now proceed to make either a chair or a statue... WRRRR!!!!! WRR! WRR! WRRRRRRRR! WRRRR! WRRR! Now the log has been transformed into either a chair or a statue. Now we may inquire into its causes. Why does this artifact exist? Because of the log. Because of the chainsaw. Because of the informed application of the chainsaw. Because of the intended function of the artifact. These are in turn: material, efficient, formal, and final causes of the artifact. My dear ladies and gentlemen, this demonstration is complete. For your attention, you have my gratitude. If you think errors reside therein, or if questions are aroused thereby, then please give voice to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 How much math do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 How much math do you know? I know some math Noggy. But you are wearing my patience thin. Now, we can come together, and both admit that we have some learning to do, or we can each pretend to understand everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 How much math do you know? I know some math Noggy. But you are wearing my patience thin. Now, we can come together, and both admit that we have some learning to do, or we can each pretend to understand everything. Woah, dude, calm down. No reason to start getting thin in the patience at the very beginning. You know me, I'm willing to hear both sides of the argument, and have no problem changing my opinion if yours is correct. Do you understand anything about the math of QM? Or probability distributions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 How much math do you know? I know some math Noggy. But you are wearing my patience thin. Now, we can come together, and both admit that we have some learning to do, or we can each pretend to understand everything. Woah, dude, calm down. No reason to start getting thin in the patience at the very beginning. You know me, I'm willing to hear both sides of the argument, and have no problem changing my opinion if yours is correct. Do you understand anything about the math of QM? Or probability distributions? We came to this thread to discuss Aristotle's causes and perhaps see the relations between how and why. And again you wearing me thin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 How much math do you know? I know some math Noggy. But you are wearing my patience thin. Now, we can come together, and both admit that we have some learning to do, or we can each pretend to understand everything. Woah, dude, calm down. No reason to start getting thin in the patience at the very beginning. You know me, I'm willing to hear both sides of the argument, and have no problem changing my opinion if yours is correct. Do you understand anything about the math of QM? Or probability distributions? We came to this thread to discuss Aristotle's causes and perhaps see the relations between how and why. And again you wearing me thin. I thought we were discussing the difference between How? and Why? and why science was unable to answer why? And as I read my post again, I could see how you could maybe take my questions about math to be condescending, I don't mean them to be. I just want to be able to get my point across as well as I can, and would like to know what kind of medium and examples I should be using to do that. Also, your patience naturally starts out pretty thin, dude :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 Did you even read the OP here? If you did then I think we can discuss how and why within this context. Your next response will decide whether I continue with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Did you even read the OP here? If you did then I think we can discuss how and why within this context. Your next response will decide whether I continue with you. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 Did you even read the OP here? If you did then I think we can discuss how and why within this context. Your next response will decide whether I continue with you. Yes. Okay cool. Did you see any error with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Did you even read the OP here? If you did then I think we can discuss how and why within this context. Your next response will decide whether I continue with you. Yes. Okay cool. Did you see any error with it? Yes. And I was going to try to explain it, but you got your panties in a bunch. May I continue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 Yes. And I was going to try to explain it, but you got your panties in a bunch. May I continue? Well, of course! Please explain the errors you perceive in the OP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Yes. And I was going to try to explain it, but you got your panties in a bunch. May I continue? Well, of course! Please explain the errors you perceive in the OP! It's based on the macroscopic understanding of cause and effect. We see things that appear to have a cause, and appear to have an effect. It seems to hold true all the time, but when we look into our tiny microscopes and use our detectors, we see that cause and effect dont necessarily hold. The universe is based on probabilities. And those probabilites cannot be effected by anything outside of themselves, probability is an intrinsic property of the universe. Now, when all of those probabilities average out, we get the macroscopic world and an illusion of cause and effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 It's based on the macroscopic understanding of cause and effect. We see things that appear to have a cause, and appear to have an effect. It seems to hold true all the time, but when we look into our tiny microscopes and use our detectors, we see that cause and effect dont necessarily hold. The universe is based on probabilities. And those probabilites cannot be effected by anything outside of themselves, probability is an intrinsic property of the universe. Now, when all of those probabilities average out, we get the macroscopic world and an illusion of cause and effect. No Noggy. No. You did not address the OP. You are trying to change the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts