Decartes theories about the “mechanical universe” and how ...



Malerie Rose McCarty

May 17, 2005

PHYS 361

Paper #3

How the Universe Operates

Over the course of history, generations have attempted to discover how the universe operated and what made it do what it did. Although the majority of the population Have they done this throughout time? Ancient to now?contributed attributed? the actions of the Earth to God or some other religious entity, people like Reni Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, and Charles Darwin brought to the public their own unique ideas about how the universe operated, which to them was as a “mechanical” and “ordered” force. Below describes in detail each of the aforementioned men’s idea of their own “mechanical” universe, the ways those ideas effected society, and how each other their ideas compared and contrasted to one another. Be careful talking about Darwin’s ideas as Mechanical – I am not sure that his is as mechanical – like Descartes’ is – for instance, in Decartes’ universe, any part can be examined to understand the rest of the parts, and thus the whole thing, because they all operate according to the same laws and operate together to move the whole ‘machine’ – how would you then describe how Darwin’s ideas are mechanical? Maybe you can…..

Reni Decartes viewed the universe as a mechanical entity which ran like clockwork and it was this mechanical philosophy of the universe that controlled every aspect of nature and could not be influenced by humans. As for the human’s role in the mechanical universe, he described them as having no real influence over its action and that humans were merely onlookers, having to stand outside a fictional box watching evolution and time itself role by. Descartes’ universe had two real powers, neither of a religious nature. These powers were mind, which was described as an “extension and is infinitely divisible” and matter, defined by Descartes as “non-extended and immaterial; endowed in each of us by God, is what makes us individuals, (much like a rational soul)”[1].Do you mean that mind is like a rational soul, or matter is like a rationl soul? I think that maybe your sentences got switched….? With this idea of power, he was able to expand the idea of Cartesian Dualsim which was the idea that the mind was in control of the matter, and was the more logical of the two, and that matter itself was lifeless and passive, much like nature. (except, as you earlier stated (and will below) that humans stand outside nature and have no influence on it….so how can mind be in control of matter?)

It was here that Descartes was able to tie in his idea of the Clockwork/Mechanical Universe because nature itself, being lifeless matter, was controlled by the mechanical universe which was able to give it the appearance of life on the outside, while under the surface it controlled everything from nature’s “living” to “growing”. So, the mechanical rules that were set in motion by God, “rule” nature and keep it running …..I think that if you explained how the “mech univ” controlled everything, your argument might be more clear. However, even though Descartes described everything as being made from matter and matter as being lifeless, he did say, however, that humans were the only type of matter in possession of a free mind, but still as beings without control over their own bodies, which again the clockwork universe was involved in. involved in how…? Although the universe was being run by a mechanical universe and we were aware of it, Descartes quickly mentioned that there was a Creator who made the mechanical universe and that it was that Creator who initiated the universe, but like us had no control over its present actions. Actually (there seems to be a miscommunication on this as this comes up in all the papers I’ve read) God is still involved as he maintains the systems – but regardless, what is the significance – culture wise, of the presence of the Divine? Are you suggesting that Descarte’s didn’t really believe that God ran the machine and that he brought in God only to make his theory more friendly to the times?

Descartes idea of a mechanical universe that humans had no control over was a new and terrible idea for his time. Humans were under the impression that they who could manipulate nature to their advantage and could control the outcome of certain events through prayer to their Creator. It was through prayer that they could create good fortune by praising the god which, among other things, could aide them in such things as creating good crops. However, Descartes’ philosophy was based on the idea that nature was already predetermined by the mechanical universe and was therefore fixed. No amount of prayer or any other method would change the course of nature, meaning to the humans that they had no control over their future. Ok – even though humans would be troubled about mechnical rules they did not know, could they learn to know them? Would this then take the mystery out of nature? Also – is there a comfortable, familiar hierarchy preserved in Decartes theory that might have made in more friendly to humans? Also – to answer more fully what the moral implications were, do you have any examples?

Sir Isaac Newton was a man out to discover the truth. Really? What did Newton consider the Truth to be? Where/How could/did he discover it? Although he respected the “father’s of science” such as Galileo and Aristotle, he sought to make his own discoveries and was not willing to let others influence those new ideas. Throughout his years, he made a number of important discoveries, such as learning the origin of color, creating Calculus as a language, and most well known, creating Newton’s Laws of Motion. In brief, the three laws state that one, a body will remain in a state of rest or in a straight line until another force acts upon it, two, “a body acted on by a force will accelerate such that force equals mass times acceleration”[2], and three, “for every action there is any equal and opposite reaction”[3]. These laws were based on certainty and once proven, were unchanging and fixed, this being what Newton’s universe was based on, certainty and truth.

In order to better understand and prove his truths to mankind, he developed a mathematical language called Calculus and a method of scientific reasoning, which were both to become universal, as a way in which he could prove his ideas and show others he was correct. Newton’s scientific reasoning consisted of four rules which were as follows:

1. We are to admit no more causes of natural things such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances

2. The same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes

3. Qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal

4. Propositions deduced from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate until other phenomena contradict them.[4]

It was these rules that one could follow to attempt to prove a theory and by using Calculus, one was also able to more thoroughly prove their theories and at the same time follow and replicate Newton’s own discoveries. Good point!

As for his effects on society, Newton’s laws allowed society to feel free to pursue other aspects of scientific discovery and to find new and eternal truths.(eternal? Did Newton He gave the world a number of constants that people could base their work off of and use it to build on their own work. His discoveries are used even today his genius has been celebrated throughout time. Ok – I think your saying the moral implications are that Newton gave the people new tools to better investigate nature – I think can find more moral implications than this (I know Newton is hard – I had trouble too). What might have been the significance of a universal lang. that would enable any human that could learn it to share ideas, conduct better investigations, etc? OR – Did Newton offer humans a radically different world view from past theories? Descartes? Aristotles?

Charles Darwin based his theory about the “ordering system” of the universe around his idea of natural selection which was his “idea that members of a species compete with each other for resources and that individuals that are better adapted to their lifestyle have a better chance of surviving to reproduce the revolutionized field of evolution”[5]. It was this theory that attempted to teach society how nature and the beings in it changed and evolved over a period of time.

His idea of natural selection had three sub-categories, which were stabilizing, directional, and disruptive selection, all of which explained how a trait, “a particular characteristic of an individual plant or animal” [6], could evolve or disappear throughout the course of time. He also created a new vocabulary which better explained his theories and the components it was made of, such as the introduction of choice, defined as “in sexual selection, the competition for attention from the opposite sex”[7] and fitness, which is “the probability that an individual will contribute its genes to the next generation”[8].

One of the most controversial ideas within Darwin’s theory of natural selection and evolution was the ideas that humans had evolved from primates. This greatly upset society for it was strongly believed that God had created man and selected humans to be the inhabitants of Earth. However, to hear that humans may have evolved from a primitive ape was a shock. What was even scarier was that Darwin could have been correct. He was not simply an insane man spouting incredulous theories, he had a system of science and vocabulary that was very well thought out and persuasive and therefore disrupted the religious ideals of the day. It was a nightmare because what humans had believed in was being taken away from them and what they were faced with was the idea that they had not been specially placed upon Earth, but that they had evolved because of a series of events in nature. I do not believe Darwin ever said this definitively – but that people attributed it to him or that he gave it as an option or examplt – however/nonetheless, what about all the examples discussed in class/online/Burke book about the social consequences of Social Darwinism? Your conclusions might be correct, I cannot say for sure, but you don’t offer any evidence either “people were upset” isn’t really evidence….I think you could have introduced better examples if you wanted to stick to this argument.

Although his theories were not accepted at first, and for obvious reasons, he continued to research his findings which lead to the present in which many people are believers of his idea of a universe ordered around natural selection and evolution.

Descartes, Newton, and Darwin all developed different ideas of a “mechanical” and/or “ordered” universe. All of their systems are unusual because they are virtually void of religion, of the idea of an all powerful Creator; this idea only minutely expressed with Descartes where the Creator was only the instigator of his “mechanical” universe but the Creator had no real power.(it was Newton that hypothesized God started the universe and then left it alone – Descartes’ God worked at maintaining the universe – I wouldn’t say either were virtually void of God – Darwins’ could be, though he didn’t believe that) However, it is here that Newton breaks off from the other two idealists. With Newton’s idea of an ordered universe based upon truth, he created fixed laws that are continuous throughout the age of the universe, he could prove his laws through scientific reasoning, he gave society a constant in the realm of physics, and he created a new mathematical language that helped him, as well as others, prove new theories which are still as important today.

Descartes and Darwin’s “mechanical” universes had the most in common. Both ideas represented an idea of change and evolution, the public was negatively affected by their theories, they disrupted society and what they had believed in for a vast amount of time, and neither could prove without a doubt that they were correct. Regarding the “effects” of these theories – How did these theories “affect” people? What is the action here? Provide some evidence of how the public was effected. However, Descartes idea of change was a fixed idea. It was not based on outside influences such as nature, as Darwin’s was, but upon the never changing mechanics of the universe. Good point – this gets to the heart of why People had different reactions to either theory – what did humans then “do” with Darwins theory, and why? Darwin’s idea of change was that outside influences determined how a species evolved over time and was not fixed or certain, it was a random variation in a species over the course of a long period of time. And the human, moral consequences of this were…?

Darwin also created a type of language, like Newton with his calculus, that allowed society to better comprehend his ideas and likewise, in the case of Newton, his language helped him, as well as others, prove his calculations were indeed correct. I am not convinced of this….as people then misused/misunderstood Darwins theory regardless of whatever language he offered.

Descartes, Newton, and Darwin created their own individual ideas of a “mechanical” and “ordered” universe. Although they were different from each other, they created ideas that were once unheard of and paved the way for the advancements in knowledge that we possess today. You have mostly explained ‘what’ their theories were (review Newton and Descartes!) but really haven’t offered substantial examples/evidence to support the answers to the second question – “what were the moral applications of these theories.”

I can’t criticize your ideas because they are your own, but I can criticize that I don’t think you offered much evidence to support your conlusions on Darwin’s ideas as you stated them. I am surprised though, with the many talks we had in class about the misuse of Darwin’s theories within Social Darwinism that you didn’t choose one or more of those ideas. Just because we talked about many examples and evidence, you might have been able to argue one of those more effectively.

You provide a reasonable accounting of the basic ideas, but not enough in the way of evidence or examples to clarify the issues. Esp true for Darwin. On Descrates the development of the notion that be knowing certain rules one could infer the whole might have included.

This paper is not up to the last one, and primarily because you have not analyzed the dynamics of each of the three theories as well.

B jn

-----------------------

[1] University of Oregon Blackboard Site: Physics 361

[2] University of Oregon Blackboard Site: Physics 361

[3] University of Oregon Blackboard Site: Physics 361

[4] University of Oregon Blackboard Site: Physics 361

[5] Natural Selection Study Guide. . May 17, 2005 . 

[6] Evolution: Natural Selection. . May 16, 2005 . 

[7] Terms of Natural Selection. . May 16, 2005 . 

[8] Terms of Natural Selection.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download