Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2015

How cheshire cat effect (dicovered 2014) impacts Aristotle argument

Regarding the "Universals and particulars" section, which reads: "Aristotle disagreed with Plato on this point, arguing that all universals are instantiated. Aristotle argued that there are no universals that are unattached to existing things. According to Aristotle, if a universal exists, either as a particular or a relation, then there must have been, must be currently, or must be in the future, something on which the universal can be predicated. Consequently, according to Aristotle, if it is not the case that some universal can be predicated to an object that exists at some period of time, then it does not exist.

In addition, Aristotle disagreed with Plato about the location of universals. As Plato spoke of the world of the forms, a location where all universal forms subsist, Aristotle maintained that universals exist within each thing on which each universal is predicated. So, according to Aristotle, the form of apple exists within each apple, rather than in the world of the forms."

I noticed that "Quantum Cheshire Cat Effect" experimented on 2014 and documented here, will eliminate the basis for Aristotle argument. Although it does not actually confirm Plato, but it is a proof that Aristotle's argument no longer is right. I welcome your comments. Bitziness (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Bitziness, first of all it is (if you'll pardon the expression) a quantum leap from a single physics experiment to (if you'll pardon the expression) a metaphysical conclusion, but in any case you are just wrong that the referenced experiment demonstrates the separability of particular entities and their properties. To put it in the simplest form, the experiment suggests that a neutron may take one path while one of its properties, its magnetic moment, takes a different path. But of course an automobile may take one path while one of its properties, its tire noise, takes many others. An ordinary automobile moving at ordinary speeds on ordinary pavement has tire noise as one of it's intrinsic properties as surely as a neutron has its magnetic moment as one of its.

Some science "hustlers" are prone to make sweeping statements about how quantum phenomena rule out this or that common sense understanding of the macro world, but they never do, actually. Riddle me this: if the measured magnetic moment and the measured "other" properties of the neutron (e.g. it's, mass, spin, polarization, etc.) are able to be unambiguously associated (quantum entanglement) such that it is possible to be confident that the "separated" property is (or was), in fact, a property of the original neutron, then in what sense are the two "separate"? And the answer turns out to be that they violate the strictures of what is known as the principle of locality, which is hardly a principle that Aristotle would have insisted upon as necessary to tie particular entities to their properties. (Democritus might endorse locality.) Remember, Aristotle endorses teleological causation, and I'm sure you recognize the problems that species of causation makes for locality! Also, Aristotle must have believed in absolute space and time (who didn't before Einstein?) which view permits absolute simultaneity and thus certainly violates locality.

Of course, this forum is for discussing improvements to the Aristotle article, so unless you have a reliable source for the pairing of quantum mechanical experiments and conclusions in metaphysics, this discussion, fun as it is for me, cannot continue. A reliable source for the intersection of physics and metaphysics cannot be either a physicist simpliciter nor a philosopher simpliciter but one of those philosophers of science (such as Joseph Berkovitz) or scientists of a philosophical bent such as John Stewart Bell who are qualified to comment on the intersections of the two disciplines. You may even find one who agrees with Denkmayr et al on the Cheshire Cat effect. —Blanchette (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Typo

Change the case of letter "n" from lower to upper in the word "northern" in the infobox (subsection: Birth)
117.207.21.87 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Amortias (T)(C) 17:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2015

Kindly include the following two interpretations of Aristotle and his philosophy in a more simplified and easy to understand manner. The interpretation is by an influential philosopher "Ayn Rand". She had studied and understood Aristotle and his philosophy and had the capability to interpret it objectively on its merits.

Copyrighted material removed

Arjun1491 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This material is copied directly from the cited works (as verified here). Please see WP:COPYPASTE for an overview of Wikipedia's policies regarding copyrighted material. --ElHef (Meep?) 18:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2015

The second entry on Aristotle's early Platonism is unreliable, being out of date in Aristotelian studies at least since the works of Ingemar During on the argument (late sixties on the past century).

None of the Aristotle's scholars would believe today to an early platonism in Aristotle. Please allow revision or do revise yourself. Thank you

Aristotele1982 (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The second entry on Aristotle's early Platonism is unreliable, being out of date in Aristotelian studies at least since the works of Ingemar During on the argument (late sixties on the past century). None of the Aristotle's scholars would believe today to an early platonism in Aristotle. Please allow revision or do revise yourself. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done I'm having a really hard time understanding what you want done. If you believe that the mention of Platonism is out-dated and should be eliminated, you would need to provide a source for that. -- Irn (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is the second sentence in the lead about Aristotle's father dying?

Is this really that important?

arisotle's proper biography, fit for a truly distinguished encyclopedia of philosophy: "He was born, *he worked*, he died." What's with all the excess effluvia in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevertMeAndYouShallBeEvisceratedAndYourDescendantsWipedFromTheEarth (talk • contribs) 00:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What can this sentence possibly mean? Semi-protected edit request to delete a sentence without meaning on September 6, 2015

="The sum of his work's influence often ranks him among the world's top personalities of all time with the greatest influence, along with his teacher Plato, and his pupil Alexander the Great.[9][10]"

Certainly Aristotle is not remembered for being "among the world's top personalities." What is a "top personality" anyway? Is that like a really popular reality show contestant? What exactly do we know about Aristotle's "personality" anyway?

This has to be the single most ridiculous sentence I have ever read. Please, someone with a heart, take pity on the great pain this sentence is causing me and send it somewhere where it shall never be heard from again. Many thanks.Parrhesiast (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The Parrhesiast implores you to delete this sentence! Aristotle is not a "personality" to begin with and we know almost nothing about Aristotle's personality today. Please someone delete this montrosity at once! Our credibility as encylopedists lies in the balance.}}Parrhesiast (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Already done by Prokaryotes and Sarah. Altamel (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged, noble sirs and madams. The Parrhesiast is in your debt. Parrhesiast (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)