What exactly is matter, it is not an every day question that one asks one’s own self. When looked at there are many different views on this subject, however because of the numerous numbers of different views, it is only possible to look at three of the discourses. The three discourses of matter to be looked at are; the Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical. Each discourse has evolved through time into the views that we know, and accept today. The distinction between these views on matter differs greatly, however it is possible to say that all three views came from the same place. This place being ancient Greece; it was their belief in gods that brought about religion, philosophy, and then science.
The scientific view of matter has evolved over time. Science for many centuries has been accompanied by philosophical thought, throughout time the mixture of the two is very evident. The beginnings of western science, namely physics, coincide with that of the first period of Greek philosophers. Physics is in fact a term derived from the Greek word “physis” which means “the endeavor of seeing the essential nature of all things” (Capra, 1977, p. 9). The basic ideas evolved from the Greek philosophers, and philosophy remained a big part of science right up until the Newtonian view of the universe.
Newton had a mechanistic view of the universe. He saw the universe as a three dimensional space. This space was unchangeable and always stagnant.
“In Newton’s own words, “Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable.” All changes in the physical world were described in terms of a separate dimension, called time, which again was absolute, having no connection to the material world and flowing smoothly, from the past through the present to the future.” (Capra, 1977, p. 43).
The things, which made up the absolute space and time, were material particles. These were perceived by Newton to be a part of all matter, as well as indestructible. Newton’s views were very parallel to those of the early Greek atomists. “Both were based on the distinction between the full and the void, between matter and space, and in both models the particles remained always identical in their mass and shape.” (Capra, 1977, p. 43).
The difference between these two views came in the forces that acted upon the particles. The early Greeks...
... middle of paper ...
...nce.
Thus the different views on matter are 1. Religion: God created All matter. 2. Science: All matter is made up of tiny particles, (molecules/atoms) which have forces that act upon them to create movement. 3. Philosophy: Questions the existence of matter (what is real?) and shows why it exists if indeed it does. Religion is mystical and is supernatural, and believes that God has created all matter. Science got its beginnings from early philosophers, but when philosophers moved away from the question of what is something made of, to the question of; does it exist? Science still tried to prove our existence, through what matter is made of. Religion and philosophy differ in that religion has an answer to the question of the existence of matter. This is the same for science; it has proved that there are tiny particles called atoms that make up every thing. So of the three discourses, philosophy is the only one still searching for an answer to the question of the existence of matter.
Bibliography
Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of physics. Bantam Books, Toronto, 1977.
Russell, B. The problem of philosophy. A Galaxy Book, New York, 1959.
Durkhiem, E. Elementary focus of the religious life.
There are different viewpoints on the question “what is the universe made of?” I think that both science and religion offer their own explanation to this topic and they sometimes overlap, which creates contradictions. Therefore, I do not agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial, which claims that there is a fine line separating science from religion. That being said, I think the conflict between science and religion is only in the study of evolution. It is possible for a scientist to be religious if he is not studying evolution, because science is very broad and it has various studies. In this essay, I will talk about the conflict between religion and science by comparing the arguments from Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. I argue that science and religion do overlap but only in some area concerning evolution and the cosmic design. Furthermore, when these overlaps are present it means that there are conflicts and one must choose between science and religion.
Once the matter was created, according to Descartes, God divides it by introducing motion in the universe:
In 1687, Newton published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (also known as Principia). The Principia was the “climax of Newton's professional life” (“Sir Isaac Newton”, 370). This book contains not only information on gravity, but Newton’s Three Laws of Motion. The First Law states that an object in constant motion will remain in motion unless an outside force is applied. The Second Law states that an object accelerates when a force is applied to a mass and greater force is needed to accelerate an object with a larger mass. The Third Law states that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. These laws were fundamental in explaining the elliptical orbits of planets, moons, and comets. They were also used to calculate
The idea of freedom, that America, founded its principles on, has not always successfully held up. Undoubtedly when our country first started, we had the idea in mind, that our constitution would protect the needs of its people, even as those needs alter; therefore it’s wording needed to be, ductile and interpretive. In recent years, this plasticity has become functional and fair, yet in the past, politicians used it to give and revoke, power, to and from people. Prior to the civil war, though it helped spark many of the social/civil revolution we know today, liberty and freedom were a luxury enjoyed by a few people. Woman, non-whites, and low-income people had their liberties denied, questioned or altogether abolished. However these same groups
The French and Indian War devastated the American land. The war was expensive thus putting England in major debt. The Board of Trade at the instance of the British Merchants planned to assist in the matter. Americans experienced a harsh life in the colonies. The colonists would experience savage, hate-driven mobs, bad harvests and sudden deaths. Americans colonists believed England was feudal, tyrannical, and reactionary. However, Europeans believe England to be a wild, upstart race, notable for their revolutions and their pathological adherence for liberty. Compared to Britain, most of the Americans were poor and scrapped to survive. The Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Coercive Acts, and Townshend Act were different ways the British tried to push the colonists into submission and pay off the debts (Lancaster). The Writs of Assistance gave the British the opportunity to invade a colonial home with a virtually blank search warrant (Lancaster). All fiscal control of local government and courts was passed out to nepotistic friends of the British government. The colonies eventually ran by a few influentia...
Epicurean's physics was atomistic; meaning that the entire universe merely consisted of atoms and the space or void in which the atoms floated, collided, and whirled about. Lucretius wrote that 'not all bodily matter is tightly packed /by nature's law, for there's a void in things. By void I mean vacant and empty space, /something you cannot touch'; (Lucretius 456). For if the universe were comprised of only matter, then nothing would ever move, because it is the nature of matter to remain immobile until acted upon by an outside force. Without the open space, or void, nothing could have been made or brought to life. Epicur...
Aristotle's book The Physics, was in existence by about 350 B.C. This book is mainly concerned with change a...
With the Scientific Revolution in full swing, Sir Isaac Newton became very interested in advanced science and philosophy. In fact, he...
Modern sciences have either directly emerged from philosophy or are very closely related to multiple philosophical questions. Understanding philosophy, as well as the way problems are addressed by philosophers, is the key to understanding science as we know it today and in the future. There are as many definitions of philosophy as there are philosophers – perhaps there are even more. Philosophy is said to be the mother of all disciplines. It is also the oldest of all disciplines and has given a rise to modern science, both social and natural conclusions. After three millennia of philosophical discourse and disagreement, it is extremely unlikely that we will reach an exact consensus. My thoughts are that a philosopher is basically a person who engages in the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with the intention of improving or reconstituting them; this is otherwise known as the study of philosophy.
Matter takes up space. According to the defining characteristics of matter and energy, matter can only be located in one location at any point in time while the superposition of energy is possible (Nave). Due to only being able to occupy one location, the phenomenon of two particles of mass occupying the same space would disprove that matter is different than energy (“What is Matter?”). When positrons (positively charged electrons) and electrons, which are both fermions, collide they undergo a process known as electron-positron annihilation (“Electron-Positron Annihilation”). The process of electron-positron annihilation results in both particles producing photons. The production of photons introduces an interesting variable when defining the existence of mass: photons, which are also classified as bosons, can experience superposition (Strassler). However, the production of non-matter particles on its own does not disprove the existence of mass.
In The Quantum Enigma, Rosenblum and Kuttner address the impact of the “Newtonian worldview” on our ability to understand and explain the phenomena of the physical world. Science has been able to greatly advance our knowledge of the natural world over the last several centuries largely due to this worldview. In this paper, five tenets of the Newtonian worldview will be summarized; two of these points—those found to be the most and least defensible—will be discussed in greater detail. As a final point, a discussion will be laid out regarding which of the five precepts, if rejected by modern physics, would be the most disturbing to give up.
Amidst many similarities, the rift between ancient and modern science is enormous and has frequently left historians puzzled. Although it is clear to historians that the stagnant science of ancient times developed into the modern scientific pursuit in the 17th century, it is not clear what specifically caused this revolution of scientific thought.
Newton, Isaac. The Correspondence of Isaac Newton. Vol. 7, 1718-1727. Edited by A. Rupert Hall and Laura Tilling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Royal Society, 1977.
The scientist Aristotle (384-322 BCE) developed many important theories which modern day physics is based upon. One of these theories is Aristotle’s theory of motion. Through his research Aristotle attempted to provide explanations as to how objects in our universe moved. While many of his theories have been since proven to be inaccurate, they provided a basis for future theories which eventually lead to our present day understanding of motion.
Western Philosophy began in the Greek cities of Asia Minor otherwise known as Ionia, with Thales of Miletus. Thales was born around 624 B.C.E. and died around 546 B.C.E. Though Thales had never recorded any of his ideas, many future students and writers had recorded his notable attributes to philosophy. He is credited with figuring out a method for measuring the height of the pyramids, inventing a device used to measure the distance between ships out at sea, as well as some clever military strategies. His most famous idea though, was that the originating principle in nature was water. This question of what matter is composed of has influenced philosophers from the Ancient Philosophy period to modern science of today. Thales’ most noted pupil was Anaximander , who “agreed with his teacher that there is some single basic stuff out of which everything comes,” but argued that instead of water, the ‘most basic stuff’ was To Apeiron. This word, To Apeiron, according to Anaximander is the primary substance out of which all specific things come. A young associate of Anaximander, and Anaximenes, also desired to find the answer about what “basic stuff” consisted of. He stated that air was the primary substance from which all things came. With the introduction of western philosophy came other thinkers and different ideas regarding ‘basic stuff.’ Pythagoras, who lived from around 569 to 500 B.C.E., was born on the Greek island of Samos. Unlike many philosophers of his time who reasoned that there was a tangible substance that all matter was composed of, Pythagoras took the view that all things were made of numbers. Heraclitus of Ephesus, who lived through the years 540 to 480 B.C.E., shifted attention from the question concerning ‘basic stuff...