prompter: Why Aristotelian view of physics (impetus and stuff) is wrong?

assistant: Aristotle's views on physics, which included the concept of impetus, were considered groundbreaking in his time, but have since been discredited in the light of more advanced scientific knowledge. There are several reasons why Aristotle's views on physics are considered incorrect:

- Inaccurate understanding of motion: Aristotle believed that objects in motion needed a continuous force to keep them moving, which is known as the concept of impetus. However, this view was challenged by later scientists, who showed that objects in motion can continue to move without the need for a continuous force.

- Lack of empirical evidence: Aristotle relied heavily on logical reasoning and philosophical arguments to support his views, rather than empirical evidence and experimentation. This limited the accuracy of his understanding of the natural world.

- Incorrect ideas about gravity: Aristotle believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, which was later proven incorrect by experiments carried out by Galileo Galilei.

- Misunderstanding of the nature of matter: Aristotle believed that matter was composed of four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) and that these elements had inherent properties that determined their behavior. However, later scientists showed that matter is made up of atoms and molecules, and that its properties are determined by the interactions of these subatomic particles.

These and other inaccuracies in Aristotle's views on physics were corrected over time as scientists continued to gather evidence and refine their understanding of the natural world. Today, Aristotle's views on physics are considered to be a significant early contribution to the development of modern science, but are considered outdated and incorrect in light of current scientific knowledge.

While his views on this case are considered outdated, in overall his contributions to the development of Western thought and philosophy have been substantial and enduring, and his ideas continue to be the subject of scholarly study and discussion.

assistant: The Aristotelian view of physics may make sense from the standpoint of everyday human experience, but it lacks explanatory power and doesn't stand up to the test of the scientific method. This means it is inadequate for answering precise questions about theoretical scenarios, which is one of the goals of modern physics. For example, his theory of gravity, that objects move to their "natural place," does not claim to give us the ability to describe how fast an object will move, its trajectory, or any other information except where it will end up; going even farther, it is not even correct about that, as where gravity moves an object to depends on the state of other bodies around it.

Impetus, however, is a completely different idea created by later philosophers (including John Philoponus) to try to rectify some of the issues they saw with Aristotle's theory of motion. Various conceptions of it exist, but the common thread is that it tries to explain the philosopher's perception that projectiles are not affected by gravity the same way falling objects are—a perception that was later shown to be false.

assistant: Aristotelian physics, which was based on the concept of impetus and the idea that objects naturally come to rest, was largely discredited by the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries. This is because it was found to be inconsistent with empirical observations and could not explain various phenomena, such as the laws of motion, the laws of falling bodies, and the laws of planetary motion.

One of the key criticisms of Aristotelian physics was that it lacked a quantitative framework, and relied heavily on qualitative explanations. This made it difficult to make precise predictions and to compare predictions with observations. Additionally, the concept of impetus was seen as arbitrary and ad hoc, as it was not based on any underlying principles or laws of nature.

Instead, the Scientific Revolution saw the rise of a more mathematical and quantitative approach to physics, based on the work of figures such as Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, and Johannes Kepler. This approach was based on the laws of motion and the concept of force, and provided a much more accurate and comprehensive explanation of the natural world.

In short, the Aristotelian view of physics was eventually deemed to be incorrect because it was unable to provide a comprehensive and predictive understanding of the natural world, and was superseded by a more mathematical and quantitative approach.

prompter: Have the mathematics and principles introduced during the 16th and 17th century also been superseded, and to what extend do we understand these same phenomena today?

assistant: The mathematics introduced during the 16th and 17th century are still largely applicable today, though they do not hold in extreme domains (of cosmic scale or high speeds or tiny measurements). 

Today, we have more rigorous theories that make more accurate predictions in broader domains, but these theories --particularly those of quantum mechanics and general relativity-- do not seem readily compatible with one another, and attempts to unify them constitute an ongoing area of research.

assistant: The mathematics and principles introduced during the 16th and 17th centuries were the foundations of modern mathematics and science. Many of these mathematical and scientific discoveries and advancements, such as those made by Isaac Newton, are still used today in various fields and form the basis of our understanding of the natural world.

However, it is also true that our understanding of many of these phenomena has expanded and improved over time. For example, Newton's laws of motion, which were developed in the 17th century, have been refined and improved by later scientists such as Albert Einstein. Einstein's theory of general relativity provided a more complete understanding of gravity and its effects on the curvature of space-time.

Similarly, in mathematics, the work of 17th century mathematicians such as Pierre de Fermat and Blaise Pascal in number theory and probability theory has been expanded and refined by later mathematicians. Today, modern number theory and probability theory are actively researched fields with many new discoveries and advancements.

In conclusion, while the mathematics and principles introduced during the 16th and 17th centuries were fundamental and continue to play an important role in our understanding of the natural world, our understanding of these same phenomena has also evolved and improved over time.