The Rambam’s Peshat

Thank you for the last 2 answers that teach wisdom and knowledge.
Baruch, I meant great things because I was thinking about your question and Rabbi Blumentzweig's answer.

My knowledge of physics (and indeed physics) is limited, but I understand that all of Newton's laws and those that preceded and followed him explain the phenomena and not the explanation for those phenomena, and therefore there is still evidence for the rotation of the wheel, and as you wrote.

I hope that the laws of inertia (of circles, not of the Torah) were broken in the Yeshiva Yerucham Tovvab, because then you are probably stuck in an eternal circle.

Regarding your words about the bastards, I would like to settle down.

Permission is granted (to sit down). 🙂

(: To Boaz

I'm not sure if you understood, but the story with Rabbi Blumentzhweig is a joke. It is also clear that usually there is no explanation that explains itself. It is turtles all the way to the bottom. Therefore, there is no evidence here from the rotation of the wheel.

And Rabbi

Rabbi Blumentzhweig is wrong. There is no need for an explanation why a body does not need force for it to continue in its movement. This indicates a lack of understanding of the intellectual foundation of mechanics. (Philosophy of physics perhaps). We understand that force is an explanation. And the discovery was that only acceleration needs an explanation. We are looking for an explanation for the deviation. Not for the situation from which we deviated (which is movement at a constant speed and not just immobility). And he himself is self-evident in silence. And asking him why he is the way he is certainly does not constitute the Maimonides' evidence.

The Rabbi's Ho is also invalid because the wheels are above the murky world of the four elements And there only exists the ether, but as we know, there has been no friction with it since the discoveries of our friends Albert. (I do know where the bread is made from)

Hello Ayalon.
As always, I enjoy your absolute determination and confidence. But as you know, determination is not an argument.
Therefore, I hope you will forgive me if I still hesitate to challenge it and say that it was not written or said in jest, and Rabbi B. is not wrong, and I will add that I do not agree with a single word you say.
You assume that physics determines what requires explanation and what does not, and Rabbi B. himself did not accept this. Physics is itself a kind of explanation. Just as the laws of nature are not an explanation for the formation of the world (which makes God redundant in the physico-theological view) because the question still remains why they are the way they are.

As Yehuda and more to read

It is true that when the rabbi wants to joke, he makes his mark with an emoji, and it is a small, smiling face like this: ?

And it is also true that the jokes of scholars of Torah need study.

Now I can only wonder if your message was meant as a joke…
Oh, I forgot, here it is: 🙂

I enjoy it when the Rabbi enjoys it (:

But I stand behind my words and my firmness stands in its place. After all, the background to our words is the words of Maimonides. Certainly, current physics is a kind of explanation and not the one that tells us what needs an explanation and what does not. These are simple things and a clear rebuke to the Rabbi who suspected me of such superficiality (and even more so by comparing my words to those who conclude from physics about the existence of God). But I assume that when discussing Maimonides' words, we work within the framework of Aristotelian physics (it stands in the background of our discussion) and the Rabbi will be on the Rabbi's words because of its replacement - Newtonian mechanics (the sages of physics). In other words, now the assumptions of the latter stand in the background of our words and in its language, power is "explanation". Because explanation is only for phenomena, that is, for "changes" (as I explained The fundamental situation is unexplainable (otherwise turtles all the way), and a “change” in Newtonian mechanics (and this is its innovation in relation to Aristotelian mechanics) is not motion but acceleration. With all due respect, it does not seem to me that Rabbi B. (whose background in physics I have no idea) decided to transform Maimonides’ view of God’s power into a new view of God’s power from the very phenomenon (which in mechanics is an axiom) that a body can move without force. It simply seems to me (and I hope I am wrong) to be yet another embarrassing ignorance of science by rabbis and an even more embarrassing attempt to restore relevance to Maimonides’ words even when they clearly do not belong today. What kind of evidence is there for God’s power than that objects persist? It is like bringing evidence for God’s existence from the laws of physics (which is like bringing evidence for His non-existence from them). I did not claim that physics determines what requires explanation and what does not, but only When we accept its assumptions - that is, we take it upon ourselves to think like it. And this is because of its fruitfulness) except that it is the accepted explanation today, if he claims why it is the way it is, that is fine. But what does this have to do with stopping the rotation on Simchat Torah? After all, he answered you that as a counterargument to your claim that Aristotelian physics has already been replaced. So his answer to your claim is that he does not understand why Newtonian mechanics is the way it is? Does he understand why Aristotelian mechanics is the way it is? It certainly did not interest him. But once the Rambam, oh the holy Rambam, adopted it, then it is Torah from Sinai and there is no need to ponder it, and anyone who argues against it must bring evidence from the mouth of the hero.

In short, when I argued that Rabbi B was wrong, it was not because he claimed that persistence itself needs an explanation (which is a good question as to why force is not needed for persistence), but because he claimed this in response to the Rabbi's statement that Maimonides' physics is no longer relevant (in terms of its explanatory power for nature. And that is a good question again as to why this is so). And in any case, his view of God's power is also irrelevant. And his answer to the Rabbi's statement is that they are relevant because an explanation is needed as to why Newtonian mechanics is the one that is relevant? That is exactly what I was talking about, that it is a lack of understanding of the foundation of physics.

Maimonides did not deal with the explanatory power of Aristotelian physics. He spoke of evidence for the existence of God, and he derived this from the fact that the wheel is eternal. In Rabbi B.'s translation, the evidence is that no force is required to continue motion, that is, from Newton's first law. Indeed, it is possible to perhaps provide similar evidence from any law, as long as it is not trivial. The argument is that the first law is not trivial. In this view, a trivial law is, for example, that a body never stands still unless a force acts on it. The basis for this is intuition and not physics (after all, we are examining our physics here against possible physics that do not exist).
Okay, but we are really getting too deep into the anecdote that I mentioned here by the way.

I wouldn't bother myself and the rabbi with this anecdote, as I said, I thought the whole thing was a joke, if it weren't related to the questioner. Now the rabbi will understand what he's actually saying. He says that the rabbi's translation of Maimonides' words is this: 1. Previously, we needed an explanation for the rotation of the wheel, which exudes great power, and here we have evidence of the existence of a spinner with such power. 2. Translation for our time: Today, there is no need for a spinner because it can spin on its own. Ah, but that's strange and not trivial. So here we have evidence of that spinner that doesn't spin at all (some intelligent entity, etc., that stands behind the non-triviality). This of course turns the whole thing into a joke because in trying to save the Rambam's words, he turns them completely true into meaningless. After all, for any kind of such view (which is an explanation for some phenomenon in the world) that I would reject by the power of the new physics because there is a law of conservation of difficulty or a law of conservation of non-triviality, then the phenomenon on which the view is based will need another explanation. And the explanation will also need an explanation, etc. And here is proof of the existence of God from the non-triviality of physics (and reality). Then there is no way to refute the Rambam's words forever. Perhaps this is actually the physical-theological (or cosmological) proof that the rabbi is referring to. By the very fact that the world is not trivial, we have proof of the existence of an intelligence that stands behind it. But there is a feeling that this is the kind of claim that cannot be put to the test (possibly. Our experience That the world is not trivial. But this is a claim that cannot be refuted. It is contingent (necessarily true) and in this way loses much of its meaning, if it has any meaning at all. In a non-trivial world, we would not open our mouths and not ask questions.)

Sorry, correction to the comment at the end. In a trivial world we wouldn't open the mouth like that.

Maimonides' proof is not scientific and therefore does not need to stand the test of refutation. It is based on common sense and not on physics (what I read in the third notebook is a proof from the laws, or thinking outside the laws and not within them), and that is exactly what I answer you all the time, and in fact that is exactly what Rabbi Blumentzweig told me in the original conversation. We revolve around this point all the time.