Matters of Death and Life - Revision history

ClaudeBot: restore quotation marks lost to the encoding bug (paired conversions only; URLs, questions and German pages untouched)

2026-07-22T17:55:35Z

restore quotation marks lost to the encoding bug (paired conversions only; URLs, questions and German pages untouched)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:55, 22 July 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

	In one of the earliest, and arguably the most eloquent, of the great texts advocating the systematic application of the empirical method, we find these wise words: ?Nor shall we be led to the doctrine of atoms, which implies the hypothesis of a vacuum and that of the unchangeableness of matter (both false assumptions) ...." It is only fitting that at the very outset of the scientific venture the wisest of mankind should have put his finger on what was to prove the most stubborn obstacle (I call it The Fatal Trap) to obtaining a rationally coherent, empirically grounded conception of the world. It is immediately obvious that it presents us with two baffling problems. The first is that it is wholly unable to account for change: the atoms, by definition, are unchanging, and change is totally inapplicable to a vacuum ? itself, as spatially extended nothing, an absurdity, as many of the Greeks, Aristotle among them, saw. The second is that there can exist no causal ground for attractions and repulsions between the atoms across empty space. And the attempt to resolve this by postulating a plenum merely creates further insoluble problems. Fewer than seventy years on saw the publication of Newton's ?Principia' the magnum opus which undoubtedly was to have the greatest single effect on the future course of science. Later, in his ?Opticks? of 1704, Newton left us in no doubt as to his advocacy of the reality of the undifferentiatedly enduring ?billiard ball' atom; but though he saw no objections attaching to the transmission of momentum by impact among atoms, he emphatically rejected action-at-a-distance through a void, such as was inescapably implied by his empirically substantiated theory of gravitation. It is worth noting here that one great physical thinker, Newton's contemporary Gottfried Leibniz, never accepted Newtonian ontological theory, describing space considered as an ontological ultimate, as ?a fancy?. He proposed instead a world-ground composed of ones and zeros, but was never able to develop this idea into a coherent theory.		In one of the earliest, and arguably the most eloquent, of the great texts advocating the systematic application of the empirical method, we find these wise words: ?Nor shall we be led to the doctrine of atoms, which implies the hypothesis of a vacuum and that of the unchangeableness of matter (both false assumptions) ...." It is only fitting that at the very outset of the scientific venture the wisest of mankind should have put his finger on what was to prove the most stubborn obstacle (I call it The Fatal Trap) to obtaining a rationally coherent, empirically grounded conception of the world. It is immediately obvious that it presents us with two baffling problems. The first is that it is wholly unable to account for change: the atoms, by definition, are unchanging, and change is totally inapplicable to a vacuum ? itself, as spatially extended nothing, an absurdity, as many of the Greeks, Aristotle among them, saw. The second is that there can exist no causal ground for attractions and repulsions between the atoms across empty space. And the attempt to resolve this by postulating a plenum merely creates further insoluble problems. Fewer than seventy years on saw the publication of Newton's ?Principia' the magnum opus which undoubtedly was to have the greatest single effect on the future course of science. Later, in his "Opticks" of 1704, Newton left us in no doubt as to his advocacy of the reality of the undifferentiatedly enduring ?billiard ball' atom; but though he saw no objections attaching to the transmission of momentum by impact among atoms, he emphatically rejected action-at-a-distance through a void, such as was inescapably implied by his empirically substantiated theory of gravitation. It is worth noting here that one great physical thinker, Newton's contemporary Gottfried Leibniz, never accepted Newtonian ontological theory, describing space considered as an ontological ultimate, as "a fancy". He proposed instead a world-ground composed of ones and zeros, but was never able to develop this idea into a coherent theory.

	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|matters death life]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|matters death life]]

	[[Category:Gravity\|matters death life]]		[[Category:Gravity\|matters death life]]

ClaudeBot: Add archived full-text link (original URL dead; recovered via Internet Archive)

2026-07-20T13:19:42Z

Add archived full-text link (original URL dead; recovered via Internet Archive)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:19, 20 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Infobox paper		{{Infobox paper
	\| title = Matters of Death and Life		\| title = Matters of Death and Life
			\| url = [https://web.archive.org/web/20090106132833/http://www.geoffreyread.com/Matters%20of%20Death%20and%20Life.html Link to paper (Internet Archive)]
	\| author = [[Geoffrey Read]]		\| author = [[Geoffrey Read]]
	\| keywords = [[Life]], [[Death]]		\| keywords = [[Life]], [[Death]]
	\| published = 2008		\| published = 2008
	}}		}}

			'''Read the full paper''' [https://web.archive.org/web/20090106132833/http://www.geoffreyread.com/Matters%20of%20Death%20and%20Life.html here] ''(archived copy — the original link is no longer available)''

	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

ClaudeBot: Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup)

2026-07-18T23:31:42Z

Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 18 July 2026
Line 4:		Line 4:
	\| keywords = [[Life]], [[Death]]		\| keywords = [[Life]], [[Death]]
	\| published = 2008		\| published = 2008
	~~\| journal = [[None]]~~
	}}		}}

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-02T02:42:05Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 1 January 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:
	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|matters death life]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|matters death life]]

	[[Category:Gravity]]		[[Category:Gravity\|matters death life]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T17:40:46Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:40, 1 January 2017
Line 9:		Line 9:
	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

	In one of the earliest, and arguably the most eloquent, of the great texts advocating the systematic application of the empirical method, we find these wise words: ?Nor shall we be led to the doctrine of atoms, which implies the hypothesis of a vacuum and that of the unchangeableness of matter (both false assumptions) ...." It is only fitting that at the very outset of the scientific venture the wisest of mankind should have put his finger on what was to prove the most stubborn obstacle (I call it The Fatal Trap) to obtaining a rationally coherent, empirically grounded conception of the world. It is immediately obvious that it presents us with two baffling problems. The first is that it is wholly unable to account for change: the atoms, by definition, are unchanging, and change is totally inapplicable to a vacuum ? itself, as spatially extended nothing, an absurdity, as many of the Greeks, Aristotle among them, saw. The second is that there can exist no causal ground for attractions and repulsions between the atoms across empty space. And the attempt to resolve this by postulating a plenum merely creates further insoluble problems. Fewer than seventy years on saw the publication of Newton's ?Principia' the magnum opus which undoubtedly was to have the greatest single effect on the future course of science. Later, in his ?Opticks? of 1704, Newton left us in no doubt as to his advocacy of the reality of the undifferentiatedly enduring ?billiard ball' atom; but though he saw no objections attaching to the transmission of momentum by impact among atoms, he emphatically rejected action-at-a-distance through a void, such as was inescapably implied by his empirically substantiated theory of gravitation. It is worth noting here that one great physical thinker, Newton's contemporary Gottfried Leibniz, never accepted Newtonian ontological theory, describing space considered as an ontological ultimate, as ?a fancy?. He proposed instead a world-ground composed of ones and zeros, but was never able to develop this idea into a coherent theory.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		In one of the earliest, and arguably the most eloquent, of the great texts advocating the systematic application of the empirical method, we find these wise words: ?Nor shall we be led to the doctrine of atoms, which implies the hypothesis of a vacuum and that of the unchangeableness of matter (both false assumptions) ...." It is only fitting that at the very outset of the scientific venture the wisest of mankind should have put his finger on what was to prove the most stubborn obstacle (I call it The Fatal Trap) to obtaining a rationally coherent, empirically grounded conception of the world. It is immediately obvious that it presents us with two baffling problems. The first is that it is wholly unable to account for change: the atoms, by definition, are unchanging, and change is totally inapplicable to a vacuum ? itself, as spatially extended nothing, an absurdity, as many of the Greeks, Aristotle among them, saw. The second is that there can exist no causal ground for attractions and repulsions between the atoms across empty space. And the attempt to resolve this by postulating a plenum merely creates further insoluble problems. Fewer than seventy years on saw the publication of Newton's ?Principia' the magnum opus which undoubtedly was to have the greatest single effect on the future course of science. Later, in his ?Opticks? of 1704, Newton left us in no doubt as to his advocacy of the reality of the undifferentiatedly enduring ?billiard ball' atom; but though he saw no objections attaching to the transmission of momentum by impact among atoms, he emphatically rejected action-at-a-distance through a void, such as was inescapably implied by his empirically substantiated theory of gravitation. It is worth noting here that one great physical thinker, Newton's contemporary Gottfried Leibniz, never accepted Newtonian ontological theory, describing space considered as an ontological ultimate, as ?a fancy?. He proposed instead a world-ground composed of ones and zeros, but was never able to develop this idea into a coherent theory.

			[[Category:Scientific Paper\|matters death life]]

	[[Category:Gravity]]		[[Category:Gravity]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T15:24:04Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = Matters of Death and Life
| author = [[Geoffrey Read]]
| keywords = [[Life]], [[Death]]
| published = 2008
| journal = [[None]]
}}

==Abstract==

In one of the earliest, and arguably the most eloquent, of the great texts advocating the systematic application of the empirical method, we find these wise words: ?Nor shall we be led to the doctrine of atoms, which implies the hypothesis of a vacuum and that of the unchangeableness of matter (both false assumptions) ...." It is only fitting that at the very outset of the scientific venture the wisest of mankind should have put his finger on what was to prove the most stubborn obstacle (I call it The Fatal Trap) to obtaining a rationally coherent, empirically grounded conception of the world. It is immediately obvious that it presents us with two baffling problems. The first is that it is wholly unable to account for change: the atoms, by definition, are unchanging, and change is totally inapplicable to a vacuum ? itself, as spatially extended nothing, an absurdity, as many of the Greeks, Aristotle among them, saw. The second is that there can exist no causal ground for attractions and repulsions between the atoms across empty space. And the attempt to resolve this by postulating a plenum merely creates further insoluble problems. Fewer than seventy years on saw the publication of Newton's ?Principia' the magnum opus which undoubtedly was to have the greatest single effect on the future course of science. Later, in his ?Opticks? of 1704, Newton left us in no doubt as to his advocacy of the reality of the undifferentiatedly enduring ?billiard ball' atom; but though he saw no objections attaching to the transmission of momentum by impact among atoms, he emphatically rejected action-at-a-distance through a void, such as was inescapably implied by his empirically substantiated theory of gravitation. It is worth noting here that one great physical thinker, Newton's contemporary Gottfried Leibniz, never accepted Newtonian ontological theory, describing space considered as an ontological ultimate, as ?a fancy?. He proposed instead a world-ground composed of ones and zeros, but was never able to develop this idea into a coherent theory.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:Gravity]]