|
Aristotle
It
is clear, then, that wisdom is knowledge having to do with
certain principles and causes. But now, since it is this knowledge
that we are seeking, we must consider the following point:
of what kind of principles and of what kind of causes is wisdom
the knowledge? (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 340BC) Metaphysics
involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-points
(concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of what follows
from them. (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 340BC)
Metaphysics is universal and is exclusively concerned with
primary substance. And here we will have the science to study
that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and
in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has.
(Aristotle, Metaphysics, 340BC)
The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that
contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest.
And to seek for this is to seek for the second kind of principle,
that from which comes the beginning of the change. (Aristotle,
Metaphysics, 340BC)
There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance
is activity. (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 340BC) ... it is impossible
that the primary existent, being eternal, should be destroyed.
... that among entities there must be some cause which moves
and combines things.
..about its coming into being and its doings and about all
its alterations we think that we have knowledge when we know
the source of its movement. (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 340BC)
The life of theoretical philosophy is the best and happiest
a man can lead. Few men are capable of it (and then only intermittently).
For the rest there is a second-best way of life, that of moral
virtue and practical wisdom. (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 340BC)
Introduction
Aristotle was the first philosopher to formalise the subject
of Metaphysics. As Aristotle explains, Metaphysics is the
study of the One Substance (and its Properties) which exists
and causes all things, and is therefore the necessary foundation
for all human knowledge. Aristotle (and Leibniz) were correct
to realize that One Substance must have Properties that cause
matter's interconnected activity and Motion. Though Aristotle
did not know what existed, he explained the scientific method
such that we could determine this ourselves. Thus Aristotle's
ideas are very important, for within them are the clues to
the solution of this most profound of all problems, 'what
exists', and thus what it means to be 'human'.
Ancient Greek Philosophy, of which Aristotle was the high
point, marked a fundamental turning point in the evolution
of humanity and our ideas about our existence in the universe.
Over the past 2,500 years Aristotle's philosophy has directly
contributed to the evolution of our current science / reason
based society. Thus it is unfortunate that many people imagine
our post-modern society to now be so 'enlightened' that Aristotle
(and other Ancient Greek Philosophers) have become irrelevant.
In fact the opposite is true. As Bertrand Russell observed
(History of Western Philosophy), it was the Ancient Greek
Philosophers who first discovered and discussed the fundamental
Principles of Philosophy, Physics and Metaphysics, and most
significantly, little has been added to their knowledge since.
As Einstein wrote; Somebody who only reads newspapers and
at best books of contemporary authors looks to me like an
extremely near-sighted person who scorns eyeglasses. He is
completely dependent on the prejudices and fashions of his
times, since he never gets to see or hear anything else. And
what a person thinks on his own without being stimulated by
the thoughts and experiences of other people is even in the
best case rather paltry and monotonous. There are only a few
enlightened people with a lucid mind and style and with good
taste within a century. What has been preserved of their work
belongs among the most precious possessions of mankind. We
owe it to a few writers of antiquity (Plato, Aristotle, etc.)
that the people in the Middle Ages could slowly extricate
themselves from the superstitions and ignorance that had darkened
life for more than half a millennium. Nothing is more needed
to overcome the modernist's snobbishness. (Albert Einstein,
1954)
It is therefore both interesting and important
to consider the foundations which caused the blossoming of
Ancient Greek Philosophy. First and foremost was the realisation
that ALL IS ONE, as Nietzsche writes;
Greek philosophy seems to begin with a preposterous fancy,
with the proposition that water is the origin and mother-womb
of all things. Is it really necessary to stop there and become
serious? Yes, and for three reasons: firstly, because the
preposition does enunciate something about the origin of things;
secondly, because it does so without figure and fable; thirdly
and lastly, because it contained, although only in the chrysalis
state, the idea :everything is one. ... That which drove him
(Thales) to this generalization was a metaphysical dogma,
which had its origin in a mystic intuition and which together
with the ever renewed endeavors to express it better, we find
in all philosophies- the proposition: everything is one! (Friedrich
Nietzsche, The Greeks)
Further, Aristotle realised that Motion (Flux
/ Activity / Change) was central to existence and reality,
as he writes;
Metaphysics is universal and is exclusively concerned with
primary substance. And here we will have the science to study
that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and
in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has.
(Aristotle, 340BC)
The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that
contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest.
And to seek for this is to seek for the second kind of principle,
that from which comes the beginning of the change. (Aristotle,
340BC)
Only
recently (Wolff, 1986 - Haselhurst, 1997) has it been possible,
with the discovery of the Metaphysics of Space and Motion
and the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), to unite these ideas
with modern Physics, Philosophy and Metaphysics. And let me
first say that it is ironic that the main problem for human
knowledge also came from the Ancient Greeks, with their conception
of matter as discrete Atoms (Democritus, Lucretius). Unfortunately,
Physics took the path of the atomists (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell,
Lorentz) and this led to the creation of 'Force Fields' (generated
by particles) to explain how matter interacted with other
discrete matter at-a-distance in Space. It is now clear that
discrete 'particles' cannot explain Reality, as they are founded
on many separate things (how are they interconnected, how
do 'particles generate fields'?) rather than one common thing
(that necessarily causes and connects the many things).
It seems that many people believe that Reality
/ Physics is too complex for them to possibly understand (and
I suspect that Physicists enjoy this reputation as being the
'high priests' who comprehend such complex things). In fact
the opposite is true - Truth is ultimately simple because
Truth comes from Reality (as Plato correctly realised) which
must be founded on One thing. And there is nothing more simple
than One Thing. (This explains why Philosophy is also known
as the discovery of the obvious!) When you read the quotes
from Aristotle (following the WSM Introduction) you will also
find his ideas to be very simple. This reflects his greatness
as a philosopher, and partly explains why his work has endured
for thousands of years. (The Greek Philosophers were also
very wise and at times quite amusing, thus well worth reading.)
And
isn't it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a
good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by
knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are.
(Plato)
What is at issue is the conversion of the mind from the twilight
of error to the truth, that climb up into the real world which
we shall call true philosophy. (Plato)
Aristotle
Metaphysics
Metaphysics is universal and is exclusively
concerned with primary substance. And here we will have the
science to study that which is just as that which is, both
in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing
that is, it has. (Aristotle, 340BC)
At the heart of Metaphysics is Substance and
its Properties, which exists and causes all things, and is
therefore the necessary foundation for all human knowledge.
Aristotle and Leibniz were correct to realize that One Substance
must have Properties that account for matter's interconnected
activity and Motion.
The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that
contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest.
And to seek for this is to seek for the second kind of principle,
that from which comes the beginning of the change. & There
must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance
is activity. (Aristotle, 340BC)
I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial,
cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity,
activity being of the essence of substance in general. (Leibniz,
1670)
The solution is to realize that Space exists
as a wave-medium and contains spherical wave-motions that
cause matter and its interconnected activity/change.
See Kant, who clearly realized the unique importance of Space
as being a priori (necessary) for us to be able to experience
and sense the world around us, and that Metaphysics (and thus
Physics) depend upon this a priori knowledge.
Aristotle Metaphysics (384-322BC)
It is clear, then, that wisdom is knowledge having to do with
certain principles and causes. But now, since it is this knowledge
that we are seeking, we must consider the following point:
of what kind of principles and of what kind of causes is wisdom
the knowledge? (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of
unprovable starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative
knowledge of what follows from them. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
Demonstration is also something necessary,
because a demonstration cannot go otherwise than it does,
... And the cause of this lies with the primary premises/principles.
(Aristotle, Metaphysics)
For those who wish to make good progress must
start well; for subsequent progress depends on the resolution
of the first puzzles, and one cannot solve these without knowing
the difficulty and the confusion of our minds. So we must
first set out all the difficulties, both for these reasons
and also because those who inquire without first setting out
the difficulties are like those who do not know in which direction
they should walk, and in addition do not even know whether
they would recognize that which they are looking for. For
the end is not clear to these, but it is for those who have
begun with the puzzles. And also from the point of view of
judging that man is better off who has heard, as it were,
all the rival and opposed positions. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
..it is impossible that the primary existent,
being eternal, should be destroyed.
.. that among entities there must be some cause which moves
and combines things.
..about its coming into being and its doings and about all
its alterations we think that we have knowledge when we know
the source of its movement.
The life of theoretical philosophy is the best and happiest
a man can lead. Few men are capable of it (and then only intermittently).
For the rest there is a second-best way of life, that of moral
virtue and practical wisdom. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
It is with some reverence that we dare enter
this ancient human temple, this construction of the subject
of Metaphysics, whose foundations were first laid 2,500 years
ago by the brilliant mind of Aristotle. And so with due respect
(and great pleasure) we begin with his observations on the
subject of Metaphysics. Let us importantly add that while
Aristotle did not know what existed, he explained to us the
method so that we could work this out. Thus Aristotle's words
and ideas are very important, for within them are the clues
to the solution of his problem of 'what exists', as we shall
endeavour to explain and thus solve.
Some philosophers have fallen into this opinion
in the same way that they have into other paradoxes. They
are confronted by an esoteric argument, find it impossible
to refute and end up by giving in to it and accepting its
conclusion! This explains the confusion of some, ... the basis
of the cure is definition. Now a definition arises from the
necessity that words have some meaning; for the definition
is the account of which the word is the sign. (Aristotle,
Metaphysics)
Rather, they start this, displaying it to the senses, ....
and go on to offer more or less rigorous demonstrations of
the per se attributes of their proprietary genera. This sort
of procedure is inductive and it is as plain as a pikestaff
that it does not amount to a demonstration of essence or of
what it is to be a thing. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
..a science must deal with a subject and its properties. (Aristotle,
Metaphysics)
.... the science we are after is not about mathematicals either
(none of them, you see, is separable). (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
But also philosophy is not about perceptible substances (they,
you see, are prone to destruction) (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that
contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest.
(Aristotle, Metaphysics)
However, there is a science higher than natural science. For
in truth nature is but one genus of that which is. It is a
science whose subject matter is universal and which is exclusively
concerned with primary substance. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
It is the principles and causes of the things that are that
we are seeking, and clearly it is their principles and causes
just as things that are.... It is, however, vital not to overlook
the question of what it is to be a thing and the definitional
account of how it is what it is. If we leave these out, scientific
inquiry is mere shadow boxing.... the science of it is First
Philosophy - and such a science is universal just because
it is first. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
And here we will have the science to study that which is just
as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties
which, just as a thing that is, it has. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
Modern
Academic Analysis of Aristotle's Metaphysics
This academic summary of Aristotle's Metaphysics, from The
Western Philosophy and Philosophers Encyclopedia 1991, is
very good, and shall further guide us;
Metaphysics is the name given by scholars
to a treatise of Aristotle. Aristotle described the subject
of his treatise in a number of different ways which he regarded
as equivalent. He called it the study of the first principles
of things. He said it was the science of existence in general,
or of 'being as such', contrasting it in this respect with
the various special sciences which each studied only one part
or aspect of being. He described it also as the study of 'substance',
a term which occupies a central position in the work of most
of the great metaphysicians who came after him. Substance
he declared to be what primarily existed, and was prior to
all other things in respect not only of existence, but of
explanation and of knowledge as well; that is to say, the
explanation of anything else involved the idea of substance;
knowledge of anything else involved knowledge of substance;
and the existence of everything else depended on the existence
of substance. Metaphysics, then, is regarded by Aristotle
as a single, comprehensive study of what is fundamental to
all existence, all knowledge and all explanation. It will
at once be evident that different identifications of substance,
i.e. of what has this fundamental character, will yield different
systems of metaphysics.
The Physics and connected works contain discussion and analysis
of such concepts as nature, change, chance, time, place, continuity,
infinity, growth; proofs that movement is eternal and that
there is an eternal Prime Mover; and much doctrine as to the
actual constitution and workings of the universe.
The argument for a Prime Mover starts from Aristotle's conception
of change and causation. There could not be an absolutely
first (or last) change. For since change implies pre-existing
matter (or potentiality) and a pre-existing efficient cause
to impose form on the matter (to actualize the potentiality),
there must have existed before a supposed first change something
capable of being changed and something capable of causing
change. But then to explain why these potentialities (for
being changed and for causing change) were actualized at a
certain time just priori to that time, that is, a change before
the supposed first change. Change therefore, or movement,
must be eternal.... This Prime Mover, eternal, changeless
and containing no element of matter or unrealized potentiality,
keeps the heavenly bodies moving and maintains the eternal
life of the universe.... He recognized that theories must
wait upon facts, and if at any future time they are ascertained,
'then credence must be given to the direct evidence of the
senses more than to theories'.
The composite picture which these descriptions
yield is not a very clear one. (1) Metaphysics is a comprehensive
study of what is fundamental in the order of knowledge, explanation
and existence; (2) it is the study of reality as opposed to
mere appearance; (3) its subject is, or has been, what transcends
experience; (4) it is, or ought to be, a study of the intellectual
equipment and limitations of human beings; (5) its method
is, or has been, a priori rather than empirical; (6) it proposes
a revision of the set of ideas in terms of which we think
about the world, a change in our conceptual scheme, a new
way of talking.
It is certainly true that most of the great
metaphysicians have proposed radically revised pictures of
the world, bold, comprehensive and often startling; and that
most of them have accorded a central place in the picture
to some few key concepts, or to some specially favored type
of entities given the title of 'substance'. It is also true
that the choice of key concepts and entities, and the resultant
picture of the world, have varied greatly from one metaphysician
to another. Sometimes even 'substance' has been dethroned,
e.g.. in favor of 'process'; and among candidates for the
role of substance the choice has been wide. Besides God, the
divine substance, who has a place in most systems, Descartes
recognized two types of substance, matter and minds; Berkeley
one only, minds or spirits; Leibniz a class of entities (monads)
each of which, though non-spatial and non-temporal, was somehow
a model of our entire universe. Spinoza recognized only one
comprehensive substance, God or Nature, infinite and eternal,
of which mind and matter were merely two aspects. Kant regarded
substance as belonging to the world of our ordinary experience,
yet set Reality itself, as totally unknowable, outside that
world. (Western Philosophy and Philosophers, 1991)
Positive Solution to Metaphysics. One Space
Exists and has the Properties of a Wave Medium.
If One thing, Space, Exists, how can a second thing exist within
the One thing Space that gives rise to Matter and its Motion?
As Aristotle importantly and profoundly says;
... there is some other cause of the change. And to seek for
this is to seek for the second kind of principle, as we would
say, that from which comes the beginning of the change. (Aristotle,
Metaphysics)
Unless the further factor is active, there will still be no
movement. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance
is activity. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
I feel quite sure that if Aristotle had known of Huygens'
work on Wave-Motion, along with the work of Newton and Leibniz,
(who all lived 2,200 years later in human history) then Aristotle
would have solved the problem of how Matter exists in this
Space of our Universe. Unfortunately no formal knowledge of
Wave-Motion existed then, hence there was no obvious solution
(as there now is.)
Thus he was confronted, along with all Philosophers, with
the Problem of the One and the Many;
Now there are several ways in which the one and the many
are in opposition. One of these lies in the fact that the
one and the many are opposed as indivisible and divisible.
What is either divided or divisible is accounted for as a
kind of plurality, whereas what is indivisible or not divided
is said to be a unity. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
Multiplicity cannot be derived from a necessarily single thing.
(Aristotle, Metaphysics)
The solution is to realize that Space is Moving, that it
is the Motion of Space which is the second thing that can
Exist within the One thing. This Motion is a Wave Motion so
we are simply saying that Space is Vibrating, Space is a Wave
Medium and has Waves flowing through it. (So we see that Aristotle's
required 'Activity' is in fact a Wave-Activity.)
Thus we see how the second existent, Motion, exists within
the One Fundamental Existent, Space.
If we now return to Aristotle, we also see how the Wave-Motion
of Space is consistent with his Metaphysical Principles, we
need simply make two additions to his sentence as underlined;
And here we will have the science to study that which is just
as that which is, both in its essence (Space) and in the properties
(Wave Medium/Motion) which, just as a thing that is, it has.
(Aristotle, Metaphysics)
Which thus explains why:
The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that
contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest.
(Aristotle, Metaphysics)
And thus we are now led to the Metaphysics of Space and Motion
and the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space, and at last
to a simple and elegant solution to the problem that the great
Aristotle formalized so long ago. For Aristotle was largely
correct, there is One Substance, Space, which Exists as a
Wave-Medium (Aristotle's Prime Mover) and thus Space is Moving
(Vibrating) due to this Wave-Motion.
Note: Space is exceedingly rigid and only allows a tiny displacement/motion,
thus the velocity of waves is VERY fast (the velocity of light
c) and the wavelength is very short (10^-12 meters) thus Space
is vibrating at something like a hundred billion billion cycles/s.
As Einstein says;
The subtlety of the concept of space was enhanced by the discovery
that there exist no completely rigid bodies. All bodies are
elastically deformable. (Einstein)
On a Perpetual Finite Spherical Universe within
an Infinite Space.
It is interesting (and perhaps surprising), that 2,500 years
ago Aristotle had already considered and rejected such an origin
(Big Bang) for the universe;
Alternatively, suppose we were to accept the mythical genesis
of the world from night or the natural philosophers' claim that
'all things were originally together.' We are still left with
the same impossible consequence. How is everything to be set
in motion, unless there is actually to be some cause of movement?
Matter is not going to set itself in motion - its movement depends
on a motive cause. (Aristotle)
The Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the WSM describes a
perpetual finite system within an Infinite Eternal Space. Space
has always existed, as have the Wave-Motions which flow through
this Space. Creation, like the Particle and the boundary, are
human constructions which do not physically exist.
I will only briefly summarize the philosophical logic of
One Space here.
Space is Infinite
As only One thing, Space, exists, there can be no boundary to
Space (as a boundary is between two things) thus Space is unbounded
and therefore Infinite.
As Blake famously wrote;
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would be
seen as it is, infinite. (Blake)
Spinoza perfectly states the logic of One Infinite Substance;
No two or more substances can have the same attribute and it
appertains to the nature of substance that it should exist.
It must therefore exist finitely or infinitely. But not finitely.
For it would then be limited by some other substance of the
same nature which also of necessity must exist: and then two
substances would be granted having the same attribute, which
is absurd. It will exist, therefore, infinitely. (Spinoza)
Space
is Continuous
There can be no Particles because Particles require two things
- the Particle and the Space around the Particle, thus Space
is a continuous medium. Or as Aristotle says; This shows us
two things: you cannot have parts of the infinite and the
infinite is indivisible. (Aristotle)
Space
is Ageless and Eternal
There are two separate arguments for an ageless and eternal
Space which beautifully support one another;
i) As only one thing, Space, exists, there can be no creation
of Space as creation requires two things (Space, and that
which is not Space but created Space) thus Space is Ageless
and Eternal.
A substance cannot be produced from anything else : it will
therefore be its own cause, that is, its essence necessarily
involves existence, or existence appertains to the nature
of it. (Spinoza, 1673)
ii) Time is a consequence of the Finite Velocity of Waves
in Space, thus it takes time for a Wave to flow from place
to place. Time does not exist as a thing in itself, it is,
like the Particle, an effect of Waves in Space, not a cause!
Thus Time only applies to Waves in Space (i.e. matter) and
not to Space itself. Therefore Space was not created for this
requires the concept of time (that the Space that now exists
was created at some time in the past) thus Space is Ageless
and Eternal. (Space simply exists.)
It need hardly be pointed out that with things that do not
change there is no illusion with respect to time, given the
assumption of their unchangeability. (Aristotle)
Motion
is Eternal
Motion must always have been in existence, and the same can
be said for time itself, since it is not even possible for
there to be an earlier and a later if time does not exist.
Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time
is - indeed time is either identical to movement or is some
affection of it. (There is, however, only one continuous movement,
namely spatial movement, and of this only circular rotation.)
(Aristotle, Metaphysics)
Aristotle was quite remarkable, and here he alludes to the
fact that Time and Motion are intimately interconnected, that
Time did not exist as something in itself but was caused by
the Motion of Matter. This is a remarkable discovery for once
we realize that Space-Motion must replace Space-Time as the
fundamental Existents, then we can clearly see the error of
both Physics (Einstein's Four Dimensional Space-Time Continuum)
and Philosophy (Kant's Space, Time and Causation as a priori).
Thus when we shortly analyse these subjects, we will find
that this new way of looking at things, with the Metaphysics
of Space and Motion (rather than Space and Time) that we find
very obvious and simple solutions to virtually ALL of their
problems. While I am of course impatient to explain these
many things, we must show constraint and be patient, such
that we develop these arguments step by step so that we can
all understand and agree about the truth as we proceed, for
it is truth alone that is important.
I should also like to briefly add here that there is another
form of continuous Motion than circular motion which never
occurred to Aristotle, that of Spherical Standing Waves in
Space, where Spherical Waves are continually flowing In and
Out through the Wave-Center.
It is very important to realize how incorrect ideas can BLIND
us to obvious ideas. An obvious example of this is Aristotle's
error about orbits of planets (continuous movement) being
perfect circles - which lasted for two thousand years! Kepler
spent years trying to solve the problems of the orbits of
the planets before finally realizing that they were in fact
Ellipsoidal.
Kepler's discovery of elliptical orbits heralded the emergence
of modern cosmology because, instead of imposing a preconceived
idea about the way the heavens ought to be, he had let himself
discover the way they actually were. He had allowed the data
to speak for themselves. Thus the ellipse represents the triumph
of empiricism over dogmatism, of commitment to mathematical
accuracy over submission to ancient authority. (Wertheim,
1997)
Just like circular orbits, the conception of both the Particle
and Time as fundamental existents, has blinded us to more
obvious solution. Once the Wave Structure of Matter in Space
is understood it becomes obvious that the Focal Point is the
cause of the Point Particle Effect of Matter, and that the
finite velocity of the Wave Motion of Space is the cause of
Time. Only then can you fully realize how blind and feeble
is our human thinking when it is constrained by incorrect
concepts. (This is as true for me as it is for any other person,
it simply reflects limitations in how we depend upon language
for thinking.)
On the Necessary Connection between
Motion and Matter
How is it that we can sense the Motion of Matter in Space?,
if Matter is something different to Motion then what is the
connection between Motion and Matter?
As Aristotle says;
... there being two causes of which we have defined in the
Physics, they seem to have a glimpse of them, that of matter
and that from which the motion comes, indistinctly though,
and in no way clearly. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
Aristotle was aware that we sense the Motion of Matter in
Space, but he did not understand the connection between Matter
and Motion. Only now can we demonstrate that Matter is a particular
Form (Shape) of (Wave) Motion, a Spherical Standing Wavemotion
of Space, thus we really sense the Motion of Motion in Space,
thereby uniting Matter with Motion and thus solving the separation
between these two previously distinct things.
This is further consistent when we consider electricity and
the Motion of electrons (actually the motion of the Focal-Point
of the SSW), for we all know that electrical energy can be
converted to Motion energy by an electric motor (and vice
versa). We now see how electricity is connected to Motion,
for the electrons themselves are a form of Motion, the Spherical
Standing WaveMotion of Space.
Though it is more complex, this is also true of our minds
and how by thinking we can move matter (e.g. my mind causing
my fingers to move to type these letters) because mind is
also caused by (and is nothing more than) the relative (wave)
motions of matter which is ultimately the relative motions
of Space.
As Aristotle profoundly says;
..about its coming into being and its doings and about all
its alterations we think that we have knowledge when we know
the source of its movement. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
|
