Nick, It has been said that Newton's mechanics "explain nothing and describe everything", where Leibniz's monads "explain everything and describe nothing". With regards to Newton, this position seems a bit strong to me. His *description* of falling bodies describes (in a forward direction, say) by assuming the geometry of the greeks and tracing the paths of bodies. With a beer or two in me, I could argue that his *explanation* of falling bodies explains (in the reverse direction) by comparing the trajectory of his falling body to the trajectory of our own Earth and moon and then claim that this is *because* Earths and moons are like Euclid's point and connected by Euclid's line. Is this just bad thinking?
Jon -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
