Isaac Newton

Different authors have attempted to clarify the aspects of remote action and God's involvement on the basis of textual investigations, mainly from the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, (Newton, 1999b) Newton's correspondence with Richard Bentley (1692/93), (Bentley 1693) and Queries that Newton introduced at the end of the Opticks book in the first three editions (between 1704 and 1721). (Newton 1952) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12870.11844/1.

Exemplul clasic al unui program de cercetare de succes este teoria gravitațională a lui Newton, probabil cel mai de succes program de cercetare lakatosian. Inițial, teoria gravitațională a lui Newton s-a confruntat cu o mulțime de "anomalii" ("contraexemple"), și a contrazis teoriile observaționale care susțineau aceste anomalii. Dar suporterii programului de cercetare a gravitației newtoniene au transformat fiecare anomalie în cazuri coroborante. Mai mult, au evidențiat ei înșiși contraexemple pe care le-au explicat apoi prin teoria newtoniană. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25794.32969.

Dans une note intitulée « Un état vrai de l'affaire et la controverse entre Sr Isaak Newton et le Dr Robert Hooke comme priorité de cette noble hypothèse du mouvement des planètes autour du Soleil en tant que leurs centres » non publié au cours de sa vie, Hooke a décrit sa théorie de la gravité. Pour soutenir sa « priorité », Hooke cite ses conférences sur les mouvements planétaires du 23 mai 1666, « Une tentative de prouver le mouvement (...) de la Terre à partir d'observations » publiées en 1674 et la correspondance avec Isaac Newton en 1679. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26375.24485. (shrink)

L'interprétation des textes d'Isaac Newton a suscité une controverse à ce jour. L'un des débats les plus animés a trait à l'action entre deux corps distants l'un de l'autre (l'attraction gravitationnelle), et à la mesure dans laquelle Newton a impliqué Dieu dans ce cas. Pratiquement, la plupart des articles traitent quatre types d’attractions gravitationnelles dans le cas des corps distants : l’action directe à la distance en tant que propriété intrinsèque des corps au sens épicurien du terme ; action directe (...) à distance divinement médiée par Dieu ; action à distance médiée par un éther matériel ; ou action à distance médiée par un éther immatériel. Le but de cet article est d'argumenter que Newton a catégoriquement rejeté les types d'action directe en tant que propriété intrinsèque des corps et l'action à distance médiée par un éther matériel. En ce qui concerne les deux autres types d’actions, directe par intervention divine et médiatisée par un environnement immatériel, Newton a répété à plusieurs reprises qu’il ne connaissait pas la cause exacte de la gravité, mais dans les deux cas, il avait directement impliqué Dieu, directement dans le premier cas. et comme cause principale (l'environnement/éther étant la cause secondaire) dans l'action médiatisée immatérielle. Mais comme la reconnaissance de l'action directe à distance aurait pu donner quelque crédit à ceux qui pensaient que la gravité pouvait être essentielle à la matière, et donc à l'athéisme, Newton n'a jamais ouvertement reconnu la possibilité d'une telle idée. Vers la fin de sa vie, Newton s'est penché davantage vers une action à distance médiée par un éther immatériel. -/- SOMMAIRE: -/- Abstract Introduction Principia Correspondance avec Richard Bentley Questions de l'Opticks Conclusions Bibliographie -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31322.70080 . (shrink)

The first edition of Newton's Principia contains only two additional comments on the methodology: the notification that the purpose of the paper is to explain "how to determine the true motions from their causes, effects, and apparent differences, and, conversely, how to determine from motions, whether true or apparent, their causes and effects"; and, in the Scholium at the end of Book 1, Section 11, Newton asserts that his distinctive approach makes possible a safer argumentation in natural philosophy. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35946.88003 (...) . (shrink)

A presentation of Hooke’s 1674 monograph introducing the idea of universal gravity was included in the Philosophical Transactions (Royal Society 1775) and subsequently several letters containing observations, including one of Huygens. But obviously, after the publication of Principia in 1687, Hooke’s priority in proposing universal gravitation was forgotten. Hooke, considered as a “mechanical genius” rather than a scientist, was often at a social disadvantage to Newton, the noble theorist, or Huygens. Hooke’s inferior social status did not allow him to identify (...) with “free and unconfin’d” gentlemen such as Boyle, for example. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13746.45763. (shrink)

L'une des controverses les disputées sur la priorité des découvertes scientifiques est celle de la loi de la gravitation universelle, entre Isaac Newton et Robert Hooke. Hooke a accusé Newton de plagiat, de reprendre ses idées exprimées dans des travaux antérieurs. J'essaie de montrer, sur la base d'une analyse précédente, que tous les deux scientifiques avaient tort: Robert Hooke parce que sa théorie n'était fondamentalement que des idées qui ne se seraient jamais matérialisées sans l'appui mathématique d'Isaac Newton; et ce (...) dernier avait tort de ne pas reconnaître les idées de Hooke dans l'élaboration de la théorie de la gravité. En outre, après la mort de Hooke et son accession à la présidence de la Royal Society, Newton a retiré de l'institution toute trace de l'ancien président Robert Hooke. Pour cela, je détaille les accusations et les arguments de chacune des parties, et comment ce différend a été perçu par les contemporains des deux scientifiques. Je termine le papier avec les conclusions tirées du contenu. -/- TABLE: -/- Abstract Introduction La contribution de Robert Hooke à la loi de la gravitation universelle La contribution d'Isaac Newton à la loi de la gravitation universelle La revendication de priorité de Robert Hooke sur la loi de la gravitation universelle La défense de Newton La controverse dans l'opinion des scientifiques contemporains Ce que disent les supporters d'Isaac Newton Ce que disent les supporters de Robert Hooke Conclusions Bibliographie Notes -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20313.06245. (shrink)

Newton a sugerat, în timp, mai multe tipuri de eter care ar putea media acțiunea la distanță. Dar, consecvent ideii sale că nu va născoci ipoteze care nu se bazează pe dovezi experimentale, nu a promovat niciodată aceste sugestii la nivelul unor ipoteze științifice. Trebuia să împace mecaniciștii, astfel încât a mers pe ideea unui eter din particule atât de fine încât masa e neglijabilă (practic, un eter imaterial). Mediul pe care Newton l-a introdus în Interogarea 21 constă din corpuri (...) materiale extrem de mici care sunt separate spațial, pe de o parte, și din principiul activ non-mecanic care produce și mediază forțele repulsive dintre aceste corpuri, pe de altă parte. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30606.72002. (shrink)

As John Henry states, Newton simply wants to reaffirm the truth of God's omnipresence without directly involving him in the physics of the world system. Newton simply wants to distance himself from a Cartesian concept of God and convince the atheists that God is a real presence extended in the world. God must exist in space for the space to exist, but God does not only act through contact. Henry believes that Andrew Janiak and Hylarie Kochiras give us a wrong (...) picture of a Newton who believes in opportunism. Newton, Henry asserts, has always assumed that God acted through secondary causes: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35495.39846. (shrink)

L'interprétation des textes d'Isaac Newton a suscité une controverse à ce jour. L'un des débats les plus animés a trait à l'action entre deux corps distants l'un de l'autre (l'attraction gravitationnelle), et à la mesure dans laquelle Newton a impliqué Dieu dans ce cas. Pratiquement, la plupart des articles traitent quatre types d’attractions gravitationnelles dans le cas des corps distants : l’action directe à la distance en tant que propriété intrinsèque des corps au sens épicurien du terme ; action directe (...) à distance divinement médiée par Dieu ; action à distance médiée par un éther matériel ; ou action à distance médiée par un éther immatériel. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17564.33926. (shrink)

Une présentation de la monographie de 1674 de Hooke présentant l'idée de la gravitation universelle est apparue dans Philosophical Transactions de 1674, et puis plusieurs lettres contenant des observations, dont celle de Huygens. Mais évidemment, après la publication du Principia en 1687, la priorité de Hooke dans la proposition de la gravitation universelle a été oubliée. Après avoir entendu parler de la demande de Hooke de reconnaître sa priorité, Newton a supprimé les nombreuses références à Hooke dans Principia. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27734.40009.

Based on Galileo's experiments, Newton develops the theory of gravity in his first book Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("Principia") of 1686. Immediately after, Robert Hooke accused Newton of plagiarism, claiming that he unduly assumed his "notion" of "the rule of the decrease of Gravity, being reciprocally as the squares of the distances from the Center". But, according to Edmond Halley, Hooke agreed that "the demonstration of the curves generated by it" belongs entirely to Newton.

La première édition de Principia de Newton ne contient que deux remarques supplémentaires sur la méthodologie: la notification que le but de l'article est d'expliquer « comment déterminer les véritables mouvements de leurs causes, les effets et les différences apparents et, au contraire, comment déterminer à partir des hypothèses si elles sont vraies ou apparentes, leurs causes et leurs effets »; et, dans le Scholium à la fin du Livre 1, Section 11, Newton affirme que son approche distinctive permet une (...) argumentation plus sûre dans la philosophie naturelle. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19797.58082. (shrink)

In Newton’s correspondence with Richard Bentley, Newton rejected the possibility of remote action, even though he accepted it in the Principia. Practically, Newton’s natural philosophy is indissolubly linked to his conception of God. The knowledge of God seems to be essentially immutable, unlike the laws of nature that can be subjected to refining, revision and rejection procedures. As Newton later states in Opticks, the cause of gravity is an active principle in matter, but this active principle is not an essential (...) aspect of matter, but something that must have been added to matter by God, arguing in the same Query of Opticks even the need for divine intervention. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16732.44162 . (shrink)

Dans sa correspondance avec Richard Bentley, Newton a rejeté la possibilité d'une action à distance, bien qu'il l'ait acceptée en Principia. L’environnement introduit par Newton à la question 21 d'Opticks se compose d’une part de corps matériels extrêmement petits, séparés dans l’espace, et d’un principe actif non mécanique produisant et médiatisant les forces de répulsion entre ces corps. À la question 28, il a clairement fait valoir qu'un environnement mécanique devrait être rejeté. L'éther traverse les corps, il est donc sans (...) importance. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23101.41446. (shrink)

Newton veut simplement réaffirmer la vérité sur l'omniprésence de Dieu sans l'impliquer directement dans la physique du système du monde. Newton veut se distancer d'un concept cartésien de Dieu et convaincre les athées que Dieu est une présence réelle dans le monde. Dieu doit exister dans l'espace pour exister l'espace, mais Dieu n'agit pas seulement par contact. Newton a toujours supposé que Dieu agît par le biais de causes secondaires. Dans l'édition de 1687 des Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle, (...) Newton déclare clairement qu'il n'attribue pas de cause particulière à l'attraction gravitationnelle. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27735.42402 . (shrink)

Practic, Newton vrea pur și simplu să reafirme adevărul omniprezenței lui Dumnezeu, fără să-l implice direct în fizica sistemului mondial. Newton dorește pur și simplu să se distanțeze de un concept cartezian al lui Dumnezeu și să-i convingă pe atei că Dumnezeu este o prezență reală extinsă în lume. Dumnezeu trebuie să existe în spațiu, pentru a exista, dar Dumnezeu nu acționează numai prin contact. Newton a presupus întotdeauna că Dumnezeu a acționat prin cauze secundare. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22468.78720.

L'exemple classique d'un programme de recherche réussi est la théorie gravitationnelle de Newton, probablement le programme de recherche lakatosien le plus réussi. Initialement, la théorie gravitationnelle de Newton était confrontée à de nombreuses « anomalies » (« contre-exemples ») et contredisait les théories observationnelles qui soutenaient ces anomalies. Mais les partisans du programme de recherche sur la gravité newtonienne ont transformé chaque anomalie en cas corroborants. De plus, ils ont eux-mêmes indiqué des contre-exemples qu'ils ont ensuite expliqués à travers la (...) théorie newtonienne. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16540.44165. (shrink)

Interpretarea textelor lui Isaac Newton a suscitat numeroase controverse, până în zilele noastre. Una din cele mai aprinse dezbateri este legată de acțiunea între două corpuri aflate la distanță unul de celălalt (atracția gravitațională), și în ce măsură Newton a implicat pe Dumnezeu în acest caz. Practic, majoritatea lucrărilor discută patru tipuri de atracții gravitaționale în cazul corpurilor aflate la distanță: acțiunea la distanță directă ca proprietate intrinsecă a corpurilor în sens epicurian; acțiunea la distanță directă mediată divin, de Dumnezeu; (...) acțiunea la distanță mediată printr-un eter material; sau acțiunea la distanță mediată printr-un eter imaterial. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33372.03203. (shrink)

Teoreticienii au formulat un set de criterii fundamentale pe care orice teorie a gravitației ar trebui să le satisfacă, două pur teoretice și două care se bazează pe dovezi experimentale. Astfel, o teorie trebuie să fie: 1. completă (capabilă să analizeze din "primele principii" rezultatul oricărui experiment de interes); 2. auto-consistentă (predicția sa pentru rezultatul fiecărui experiment trebuie să fie unică); 3. relativistă (la limită când se neglijează gravitația în comparație cu alte interacțiuni fizice, legile non-gravitaționale ale fizicii trebuie să (...) se reducă la legile relativității speciale); 4. cu limita newtoniană corectă (în limitele câmpurilor gravitaționale slabe și ale mișcărilor lente, trebuie să reproducă legile lui Newton). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22012.90244. (shrink)

Prima ediție a Principia lui Newton conține doar două comentarii suplimentare despre metodologie: notificarea că scopul lucrării este de a explica "cum să determinăm mișcările adevărate din cauzele lor, efectele și diferențele aparente și, dimpotrivă, cum să determinăm din ipoteze dacă sunt adevărate sau aparente, cauzele și efectele lor"; și, în Scholiul de la sfârșitul Cărții 1, Secțiunea 11, Newton afirmă că abordarea sa distinctivă face posibilă argumentarea mai sigură în filosofia naturală. În a doua ediție (1713) Newton introduce secțiuni (...) separate pentru fenomene și reguli implicate în determinarea gravitației universale, iar la sfârșitul Scholiului General din cea de-a treia ediție, 1726, include cea mai faimoasă declarație metodologică. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34012.54403. (shrink)

În mod obișnuit, "laboratorul" testelor gravitaționale a fost corpurile cerești, sistemele astrofizice. Dar astfel de teste sunt perturbate de efecte non-gravitaționale. Cel mai utilizat astfel de "laborator" a fost sistemul solar. De curând, oamenii de știință s-au concentrat pe observarea pulsarilor binari pentru verificarea teoriilor gravitaționale, prin observațiile privind variațiile perioadei orbitale, furnizând astfel dovezi indirecte pentru emisia de radiație gravitațională. Dar experimentatorul nu poate ”aranja laboratorul” după nevoile sale, și nici declanșa anumite evenimente atunci când are nevoie de ele. (...) Însă actuala dezvoltare tehnologică începe să permită experimente pure de laborator. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31987.48169 . (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Newton's Metaphysics: Essays by Eric SchliesserMarius StanEric Schliesser. Newton's Metaphysics: Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Pp. 328. Hardback, $99.90.Newton owes his high regard to the quantitative science he left us, but his overall picture of the world had some robustly metaphysical threads woven in as well. Posthumous judgment about the value of these threads has varied wildly. Christian Wolff thought him a metaphysical rustic, as did Hans (...) Reichenbach some two centuries later ("Die Bewegungslehre bei Newton, Leibniz und Huygens," Kant-Studien 29 [1924]: 416–38). In the 1960s, the tide would turn, as Howard Stein and James Edward McGuire separately began to show that Newton's metaphysics was not just sophisticated, but often more compelling than its early modern alternatives (see respectively "Newtonian Spacetime," Texas Quarterly 10 [1967]: 174–200; and Tradition and Innovation: Newton's Metaphysics of Nature [Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995]). Eric Schliesser's book unfolds in that same register of appreciative, high scholarship, and it attests to the enduring attraction of its subject.The book grew out of previous discrete papers, to which he added a few more for this occasion. Accordingly, it does not come with a master argument. Rather, it is an in-depth exploration of some key metaphysical themes in Newton. As such, it befits its subject figure, who reflected on themes and concepts while stopping short of working out systems.The first major theme is Newton and Spinozism. The latter does not denote Spinoza's metaphysics. In fact, Schliesser explains, Newton shared with Spinoza some weighty commitments, for example, to space being actually infinite, and to substance monism: "for Newton, there is strictly speaking only one genuine substance," namely, God (33). Rather, "Spinozism" is an interpreter's category for a bundle of three theses: identifying God and nature; denying final causation in the physical world; and the assumption of "blind" metaphysical necessity. Some counted Hobbes and John Toland as Spinozist in this sense, and even Epicurus, avant la lettre. Newton and his followers argued vehemently against this package, as Schliesser shows in chapters 4, 5, and 8. Their chief complaint was that Spinozism is unable to account for the "origin of motion," for a certain type of order, and for the stability of cosmological structure—and to do so in a way that "meets the standards of Newtonian mechanics" (122). This interpretive lens allows Schliesser to draw Kant in, by reading his youthful Theory of Heaven as a possible Spinozist reply to their objections (chapter 3). [End Page 157]A second theme is the metaphysics of mechanics, where Schliesser weaves together several strands. One is the ontology of gravity, for which he offers a novel construal: for Newton, gravity counts as real, but in a qualified sense. Namely, it is not essential and not intrinsic: "even after creation, a lonely partless particle of matter in the universe would not be said to gravitate." And gravity is relational: a "shared quality" of two or more bits of matter, which obtains in virtue of their sharing a nature (19). Another strand is Newton's ontology of time—really, a subtle, difficult topic long neglected. Famously, Newton in Principia defends absolute, true, and mathematical time. The question is what these three qualifiers denote, and whether Newton thought they were synonymous. Schliesser in chapter 7 argues for the provocative view that "absolute" and "true" time are not identical concepts; rather, they pick out different entities. These entities share a common structure, namely, metric and topological. That makes them species of "mathematical" time (179). But, Schliesser contends, Newton has unequal warrant for his two concepts of time.Yet another theme is formal causation. It comes to the fore in chapter 5, which grapples with Newton's opaque idea that space is an "emanative effect." Schliesser explains that here, "emanation picks out a species of formal causation" (147), but in a novel, early modern sense that comes from Bacon, not Aristotle. If space has a formal cause, then so has its twin brother, time, the topic of chapter 7. God is their common formal cause. Then in chapter 6 (coauthored with Zvi Biener) Schliesser adds that, for Newton, laws... (shrink)

I examine Du Châtelet’s methodology for physics and metaphysics through the lens of her engagement with Newton’s Rules for Reasoning in Natural Philosophy. I first show that her early manuscript writings discuss and endorse these Rules. Then, I argue that her famous published account of hypotheses continues to invoke close analogues of Rules 3 and 4, despite various developments in her position. Once relevant experimental evidence and some basic constraints are met, it is legitimate to inductively generalize from observations; general (...) hypotheses can thereafter be assumed as true until contrary experiments show otherwise. I conclude by arguing that this account of induction plays an essential role in her metaphysics, both in an argument for simple substances—which has an inductive premise—and in her attempt to distinguish acceptable and unacceptable metaphysical commitments. (shrink)

Newton’s First Law of Motion is typically understood to govern only the motion of force-free bodies. This paper argues on textual and conceptual grounds that it is in fact a stronger, more general principle. The First Law limits the extent to which any body can change its state of motion –– even if that body is subject to impressed forces. The misunderstanding can be traced back to an error in the first English translation of Newton’s Principia, which was published a (...) few years after Newton’s death. (shrink)

Du Châtelet holds that mathematical representations play an explanatory role in natural science. Moreover, she writes that things proceed in nature as they do in geometry. How should we square these assertions with Du Châtelet’s idealism about mathematical objects, on which they are ‘fictions’ dependent on acts of abstraction? The question is especially pressing because some of her important interlocutors (Wolff, Maupertuis, and Voltaire) denied that mathematics informs us about the properties of material things. After situating Du Châtelet in this (...) debate, this chapter argues, first, that her account of the origins of mathematical objects is less subjectivist than it might seem. Mathematical objects are non-arbitrary, public entities. While mathematical objects are partly mind-dependent, so are material things. Mathematical objects can approximate the material. Second, it is argued that this moderate metaphysical position underlies Du Châtelet’s persistent claims that mathematics is required for certain kinds of general knowledge, including in natural science. The chapter concludes with an illustrative example: an analysis of Du Châtelet’s argument that matter is continuous. A key premise in the argument is that mathematical representations and material nature correspond. (shrink)

The publication offers an interdisciplinary and historical approach to the questions of exploration of the world with an emphasis on paradigm changes during the Renaissance and early modern times, leading to new concepts that we can accept as the beginning of the natural sciences in our current understanding. The main goal is to point out the connections between the paradigms of mathematics, theology and natural sciences, the connection of which is for the main protagonists an essential factor in the formation (...) of conceptions leading to the emergence of natural sciences in the modern sense. (shrink)

This paper deals with Gärdenfors’ theory of conceptual spaces. Let \({\mathcal {S}}\) be a conceptual space consisting of 2-type fuzzy sets equipped with several kinds of metrics. Let a finite set of prototypes \(\tilde{P}_1,\ldots,\tilde{P}_n\in \mathcal {S}\) be given. Our main result is the construction of a classification algorithm. That is, given an element \({\tilde{A}}\in \mathcal {S},\) our algorithm classifies it into the conceptual field determined by one of the given prototypes \(\tilde{P}_i.\) The construction of our algorithm uses some physical analogies (...) and the Newton potential plays a significant role here. Importantly, the resulting conceptual fields are not convex in the Euclidean sense, which we believe is a reasonable departure from the assumptions of Gardenfors’ original definition of the conceptual space. A partitioning algorithm of the space \(\mathcal {S}\) is also considered in the paper. In the application section, we test our classification algorithm on real data and obtain very satisfactory results. Moreover, the example we consider is another argument against requiring convexity of conceptual fields. (shrink)

Essay review of William R. Newman: Newton the alchemist: science, enigma, and the quest for nature’s “secret fire.” Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019, 560 pp, $39.95.

O presente texto parte do pressuposto de que a radical irredutibilidade da estética às representações lógicas está no limiar do programa de pesquisa de Kant anunciado como uma filosofia transcendental. Valendo-nos de Newton da Costa, tentaremos mostrar, primeiramente, as condições de contorno que balizavam essa discussão, e o modo como Leibniz e Newton as interpretaram e construíram suas respectivas teorias. Na sequência, tentaremos indicar que na gênese dessa descoberta de Kant tem papel relevante um fato cognitivo singular, as contrapartidas incongruentes, (...) sem o qual a solução não poderia ser encontrada da maneira como se deu. Nosso objetivo, em decorrência disso, será mostrar as determinações que possibilitaram diferentes interpretações metateóricas de um mesmo fato cognitivo: a concepção do espaço. No entanto, nosso interesse principal não será validar uma dessas concepções (a de Kant, ou a de Leibniz, ou a de Newton) em face das outras, como se se tratasse de um juízo disjuntivo, mas apreciar essas teorias a partir de suas sobreposições, valorizando o trajeto metodológico entre os alegados fundamentos de uma proposta cognitiva e os problemas que ela diz resolver. (shrink)

Much scholarship has claimed the physics of Emilie du Châtelet’s treatise, Institutions de physique, is Newtonian. I argue against that idea. To do so, I distinguish three strands of meaning for the category ‘Newtonian science,’ and I examine her book against them. I conclude that her physics is not Newtonian in any useful or informative sense. To capture what is specific about it, we need better interpretive categories.

En este artículo describo la forma de trabajar de Newton ante los textos descubiertos en la segunda mitad del siglo xx. Tradicionalmente se ha asociado a Newton con la metodología cartesiana, sin embargo, esto es una equivocación cronológica. Si bien la mecánica clásica es posible identificarla con el mecanicismo y también con el mecanicismo cartesiano, el sistema que desarrolla Newton tiene otros objetivos. El más importante es probar la magnificencia de Dios. Considero que los objetivos y la metodología de Newton (...) son exactamente lo opuesto a Descartes, ya que para Descartes la ciencia parte de los principios a priori, mientras que Newton considera que la ciencia parte de la experimentación. (shrink)

El campo interpretativo sobre la obra de Newton ha sido ampliamente discutido y, particularmente, el tema de las hipótesis no ha sido la excepción. El objetivo de este texto es mostrar que la filosofía natural de Newton pareciera, en principio, rechazar la hipótesis, pero en realidad no es opuesta a la formulación de estas, si diferenciamos a qué tipo de hipótesis se hace referencia. Así pues, se muestra, en primer lugar, cómo desarrolla Newton su filosofía natural, y cómo es contrapuesta (...) a las hipótesis. Luego se muestra que bajo condiciones determinadas las hipótesis son aceptadas. Y, por consiguiente, se concluye que la filosofía de Newton no rechaza radicalmente las hipótesis, sino que, por el contrario, se puede valer de su formulación para el progreso de la investigación científica, dependiendo a qué tipo de hipótesis se haga referencia. (shrink)

En este artículo expongo las críticas que presenta George Berkeley, filósofo y Obispo de Cloyne, a la noción de fluxón que Newton introduce en su desarrollo delcálculo fluxional. En su propuesta Isaac Newton considera que se puede hablar dedos tipos de puntos: los puntos sin dimensiones y aquellos que surgen del movimiento y que pueden tener alguna clase de medida/magnitud/métrica, es gracias a la existencia de estos últimos que Newton puede realizar el cálculo de la fluxión aun cuando al final (...) del procedimiento, vuelva a considerarlo como un punto sin dimensiones. Una vez expuesta la propuesta de Newton sobre las fluxiones,presentaré la crítica de Berkeley a diversos elementos tanto conceptuales como metodológicos del trabajo de su predecesor, Finalmente ofreceré algunas conclusiones acerca de la validez de las críticas del obispo de Cloyne a Newton. -/- . (shrink)

Newton published his deduction of universal gravity in Principia (first ed., 1687). To establish the universality (the particle-to-particle nature) of gravity, Newton must establish the additivity of mass. I call ‘additivity’ the property a body's quantity of matter has just in case, if gravitational force is proportional to that quantity, the force can be taken to be the sum of forces proportional to each particle's quantity of matter. Newton's argument for additivity is obscure. I analyze and assess manuscript versions of (...) Newton's initial argument within his initial deduction, dating from early 1685. Newton's strategy depends on distinguishing two quantities of matter, which I call ‘active’ and ‘passive’, by how they are measured. These measurement procedures frame conditions on the additivity of each quantity so measured. While Newton has direct evidence for the additivity of passive quantity of matter, he does not for that of the active quantity. Instead, he tries to infer the latter from the former via conceptual analyses of the third law of motion grounded largely on analogies to magnetic attractions. The conditions needed to establish passive additivity frustrate Newton's attempted inference to active additivity. (shrink)

We may distinguish two interpretations of the relation between Newton’s natural philosophy and Hume’s science of human nature. The first interpretation can be called ‘traditional,’ the second ‘critical.’ This article will not side with either readings of Hume’s Newtonianism (or with some middle positions). Instead, essential points of confluence and divergence will be discussed.

Se buscará mostrar que las críticas de Berkeley son pertinentes al mostrar que Newton utiliza una justificación que se bása en: 1) La experiecia sensible y 2)En una noción de Dios como poder activo. Con respecto a 1) si bien se puede justificar un método con la experiencia sensible, este no dejara este ámbito y no es posible pasar a las matemáticas con este metodo. Con respecto a 2) Dios es una fuente de justificación posbile para la época, sin embargo (...) en Newton se convierte en un poder activo que se contrapone a otras fomas de entender a Dios como garante de las leyes, más no como un poder que intervenga en el mundo. (shrink)

Berkeley, Newton, Explanation, and Causation -/- I argue in this paper that Berkeley’s conception of natural law explanations, which echoes Newton’s, fails to solve a fundamental problem, which I label “explanatory asymmetry"; that the model of explanation Berkeley uses fails to distinguish between explanations and justifications, particularly since Berkeley denies real (efficient causes) in non-minded nature. At the end I suggest Berkeley might endorse a notion of understanding, say in astronomy or mechanics, which could be distinguished from explanation.

Tamas Demeter presents a clear and compelling new perspective of Hume’s methodology and conceptual structure in David Hume and the Culture of Scottish Newtonianism. Hume, he argues, is a Newtonian of the Scottish tradition, but not the mechanical kind that is modeled after the Principia. Instead, Hume should be understood as a kind of European Enlightenment “vitalist.” As a result, his work reflects the more organic methodology that defines Newton’s Opticks.

The interpretation of Isaac Newton's texts has sparked controversy to this day. One of the most heated debates relates to the action between two bodies distant from each other (the gravitational attraction), and to what extent Newton involved God in this case. Practically, most of the papers discuss four types of gravitational attractions in the case of remote bodies: direct distance action as intrinsic property of bodies in epicurean sense; direct remote action divinely mediated by God; remote action mediated by (...) a material ether; or remote action mediated by an immaterial ether. The purpose of this paper is to argue that Newton categorically rejected the types of direct action as the intrinsic property of bodies, and remote action mediated by a material ether. Concerning the other two types of action, direct through divine intervention and mediated through an immaterial environment, Newton has repeatedly stated that he does not know the exact cause of gravity, but in both cases, he has directly involved God, directly in the first case and as the primary cause (the environment/ether being the secondary cause) in immaterial mediated action. But since recognition of direct distance action could have given some credit to those who thought gravity could be essential to matter, and hence to atheism, Newton never openly acknowledged the possibility of such an idea. -/- Keywords: Isaac Newton, action at a distance, God, gravity, gravity law, gravitation -/- CONTENTS -/- Abstract Introduction Principia Correspondence with Richard Bentley Queries in Opticks Conclusions Bibliography -/- ISBN 978-606-033-201-5, DOI: 10.58679/TW14959. (shrink)

This article centers on Hume’s position on the intelligibility of natural philosophy. To that end, the controversy surrounding universal gravitation shall be scrutinized. It is very well-known that Hume sides with the Newtonian experimentalist approach rather than with the Leibnizian demand for intelligibility. However, what is not clear is Hume’s overall position on the intelligibility of natural philosophy. It shall be argued that Hume declines Leibniz’s principle of intelligibility. However, Hume does not eschew intelligibility altogether; his concept of causation itself (...) stipulates mechanical intelligibility. (shrink)

Modern science began as natural philosophy, an admixture of philosophy and science. It was then killed off by Newton, as a result of his claim to have derived his law of gravitation from the phenomena by induction. But this post-Newtonian conception of science, which holds that theories are accepted on the basis of evidence, is untenable, as the long-standing insolubility of the problem of induction indicates. Persistent acceptance of unified theories only in physics, when endless equally empirically successful disunified rivals (...) are available, means that physics makes a persistent, problematic metaphysical assumption about the universe: that all disunified theories are false. This assumption, precisely because it is problematic, needs to be explicitly articulated within physics, so that it can be critically assessed and, we may hope, improved. The outcome is a new conception of science—aim-oriented empiricism—that puts science and philosophy together again, and amounts to a modern version of natural philosophy. Furthermore, aim-oriented empiricism leads to the solution to the problem of induction. Natural philosophy pursued within the methodological framework of aim-oriented empiricism is shown to meet standards of intellectual rigour that science without metaphysics cannot meet. (shrink)

The System of the World, Isaac Newton's first draft for the third volume of his classic work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687; Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), is an important document in the history of science, using the principles of mechanics to construct the first complete scientific system on the workings of the universe in human history. -/- This book of 78 treatises briefly describes the principles established in the first two volumes of the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, then (...) applies these principles to the derivation of the actual orbits of the solar system and comets, laying out in layman's terms the universality of the law of gravitation and, from this, studying the shape of the earth, explaining the planetary precession and the tides of the oceans, probing the motion of the moon, and determining the orbits of comets. In this book, Newton does not construct abstract mathematical models, but analyses them in relation to astronomical phenomena, using only a small amount of mathematical language to explain these intriguing elements, making its content suitable for a general audience. -/- The appendices of this Chinese translation by Haixuan Pan(潘海璇) include Life of Sir Issac Newton by N. W. Chittenden, Newtonian Studies by Alexandre Koyré, which introduce Newton's life and main achievements, as well as the debates and evaluations of the main academic views of Newton by the leading philosophers and scientists of the time, and are important supplementary and reference materials when reading The System of the World. (shrink)

Nimeni nu ştie sigur dacă amintirea lui Newton despre măr a fost corectă, dar perspectiva lui aceasta este. Filosofii au crezut încă de la greci că mişcarea “naturală” a stelelor, planetelor, Soarelui şi Lunei este circulară. Kepler a stabilit că orbitele sunt de fapt eliptice, dar a crezut că mişcările planetelor este dictată de către o “forţă divină” emanată de la Soare, iar Newton şi-a dat seama că aceeaşi forţă care face ca o piatră aruncată să cadă înapoi pe Pământ, (...) ţine şi planetele pe orbita Soarelui, şi Luna pe orbita Pământului. În 1687, Isaac Newton a publicat Principia, în care face ipoteza legii pătratelor inverse a gravitației universale. Aplicarea legii gravitației lui Newton a permis obținerea multor informații detaliate pe care le avem despre planetele din Sistemul Solar, masa Soarelui și detalii despre quasari; chiar și existența unei materii întunecate se deduce din legea gravitației lui Newton. Deși nu am călătorit pe toate planetele și nici pe Soare, cunoaștem masele lor. Aceste mase se obțin prin aplicarea legilor gravitației la caracteristicile măsurate ale orbitei. În spațiu un obiect își menține orbita datorită forței gravitaționale care acționează asupra ei. Planeta orbitează stelele, stelele orbitează în centre galactice, galaxiile orbitează un centru de masă în grupuri și clusterele orbitează în superclustere. CUPRINS: Gravitația - Istoria teoriei gravitației - - Revoluția științifică - - Teoria lui Newton a gravitației - - Principiul echivalenței - - Relativitatea generală - - Gravitația și mecanica cuantică - Aspecte specifice - - Gravitația Pământului - - Ecuațiile pentru un corp care cade aproape de suprafața Pământului - - Gravitația și astronomia - - Radiații gravitaționale - - Viteza gravitației - Anomalii și discrepanțe Istoria teoriei gravitației - Antichitate - Era modernă - - Teoria lui Newton despre gravitație - - Explicații mecanice ale gravitației - - Relativitatea generală - - Gravitația și mecanica cuantică Isaac Newton - Ortodoxia creștină - Dumnezeu ca maestru creator - Alte credințe - Scrieri Legea gravitaţiei universale a lui Newton - Istorie - Forma modernă - - Forma vectorială - - Comparaţie cu forţa electromagnetică - - Reticenţele lui Newton - Aspecte problematice - - Preocupări teoretice privind expresia lui Newton - - Observații care contravin formulei lui Newton - - Reticențele lui Newton - - Soluția lui Einstein Isaac Newton vs. Robert Hooke - Opera și revendicările lui Hooke - Opera și revendicările lui Newton - Recunoașterea lui Newton - Controversa modernă a priorității - Schopenhauer despre Newton și Hooke Acțiunea la distanță - Ipotezele eterului - Corespondența cu Richard Bentley - Concluzii Explicarea gravitației prin eter - Curenți - Presiune statică Constanta gravitațională universală, G Legea inversului pătratului în gravitație - Formula - Justificare - Gravitația Gravitaţia Pământului - Ecuațiile pentru un corp în cădere în apropiere de suprafața Pământului Greutatea și imponderabilitatea - Greutatea în mecanica newtoniană - Istorie - - Newton - Relativitatea Mareele și gravitația - Caracteristici - Constituienți - Istoria fizicii mareelor - Forțe - Ecuațiile de maree ale lui Laplace - Mareele oceanelor - - Amplitudine și ciclu - - Batimetrie - Mareea Pământului - - Forța fluxului - - Mareea corporală - - Ceilalți contribuabili ai mareelor Pământului - Mareea atmosferei Pământului - - Caracteristici generale - Mareele lunare - - Componenta principală lunară semi-diurnă Câmpul gravitațional - Mecanica clasică Gravitația în interiroul unei planete (Teorema carcasei) - Dovezile lui Newton - - Forța pe un punct în interiorul unei sfere goale - Modelul preliminar de referință al pământului (PREM) Referințe Despre autor - Nicolae Sfetcu - - De același autor - - Contact Editura - MultiMedia Publishing . (shrink)

Isaac Newton is best known as a mathematician and physicist. He invented the calculus, discovered universal gravitation and made significant advances in theoretical and experimental optics. His master-work on gravitation, the Principia, is often hailed as the crowning achievement of the scientific revolution. His significance for philosophers, however, extends beyond the philosophical implications of his scientific discoveries. Newton was an able and subtle philosopher, working at a time when science was not yet recognized as an activity distinct from philosophy. He (...) engaged with the work of Rene Descartes and G.W. Leibniz, and showed sensitivity to the work of John Locke, Francis Bacon, Pierre Gassendi and Henry More, to name just a few. In his time, Newton was not perceived as a scientific outsider, but as an active and knowledgeable participant in philosophical debates.... (shrink)

Newton began his Principia with three Axiomata sive Leges Motus. We offer an interpretation of Newton’s dual label and investigate two tensions inherent in his account of laws. The first arises from the juxtaposition of Newton’s confidence in the certainty of his laws and his commitment to their variability and contingency. The second arises because Newton ascribes fundamental status both to the laws and to the bodies and forces they govern. We argue the first is resolvable, but the second is (...) not. However, the second tension shows that Newton conceives laws as formal causes of bodies and forces. This neo-Aristotelian conception goes missing in Kantian accounts of laws, as well as accounts that stress laws’ grounding in powers and capacities. (shrink)