Later scientists removed the internal causation and now the causation for inertia is purely external.

k. I gotcha. It’s like Newton. Newton’s Inertia had two components to it: an internal causation and an external causation.

Later scientists removed the internal causation and now the causation for inertia is purely external.

So, what happened to the internal causation? It was there with Newton. It was there when it was the concept of impetus. It was there with Aquinas.

So, we lost it along the way.

==

You don’t have to shout it. Ok, so it’s the unknowable unknowns. I’m iffy on the unknowable unknowns. I’m ok with the idea that it’s _possible_ that Y is entirely unknowable ever, at the same time, I find it necessary to believe from a pragmatic standpoint, that it _could be_, because there is the danger of “stopping short” of discovery.

==

I’m ok with being wrong. Again, no need to shout. I’m a reasonable human being here. I find what you have to say interesting. But the shouting is offputting.

==

ok. Then we use Y as a synonym for a number of words currently in use, simplifying the language and discussion and removing a lot of the baggage that goes with currently used terms.

==

I ‘got’ that a while back in the discussion but I was trying to clarify a little better what you were shooting for. Unknowable Unknowns and all their synonyms. I was including potentially knowable unknowns and you clarified. Just please, no more shouting.

==

I use “I don’t know” for that. I can also use “Y”. If you wish to universalize it, I’m ok with “Nobody can ever know”, even though I may not refer to it that way myself.

==

So, “Solve for Y” becomes the never-ending quest of mathematicians worldwide, the squaring of the circle of the 21st century. It could work.

==

It’s like trying to get beyond the axiom/proof system. You got the axioms and the proofs they support. But what’s behind the axioms? Y do they work so well?

And that would be the answer. Y is Y.

==

I can see how Jonathan would see that: The beginning of the thread, Y wasn’t clarified yet. It appeared to be a generic “balance”. That’s what I thought it was. But no, Y is something specific he had in mind.
===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


4 × = eight

Leave a Reply