PHILOS 2 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Definition

49 views5 pages

pucepig562

11 Sep 2017

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Is there a first beginning of everything? if anything happens or exits, it has to be a reason or a cause. Like event a is caused by b, a(cid:374)d e(cid:448)e(cid:374)t b is (cid:272)aused (cid:271)(cid:455) e(cid:448)e(cid:374)t c so o(cid:374) a(cid:374)d so o(cid:374). It seems like it can go on forever. But if the past is infinite, then it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the current moment. Since we are at the current moment, therefore, the past must have a beginning. However, what puzzling is that it seems arbitrary when we try to locate a beginning. One response for the puzzle is that infinite sequence of negative integers implies the possibility of an infinity past. There are infinitely many numbers before 0 but it does not raise a question about how 0 was reached, therefore an infinite past should not be any more puzzling that.

Related Questions

In Example 34.6 (page 1111), we imagined equipping 1950DA, an asteroid on a collision course with the Earth, with a solar sail in hopes of ejecting it from the solar system. We found that the enormous size required for the solar sail makes the plan impossible at this time. Of course, there is no need to eject such an object from the solar system: we only need to change the orbit. A much more pressing problem is Apophis, a 300-m asteroid that may be on a collision course with the Earth and is due to come by on April 13, 2029. It is unlikely to hit the Earth on that pass, but it will return again in 2036. If Apophis passes through a 600-m keyhole on its 2029 pass, it is expected to hit the Earth in 2036. causing great damage. There are plans to deflect Apophis when it comes by in 2029. For example, we could hit it with a 10- to 150-kg impactor accelerated by a solar sail. The impactor is launched from the Earth to start orbiting the Sun in the same direction as the Earth and Apophis. The idea is to use a solar sail to accelerate the impactor so that it reverses direction and collides head-on with Apophis at 80–90 km/s and thereby keeps Apophis out of the keyhole. Consider the momentum in the impactor’s orbit (Fig. P34.75) when the solar sail makes an angle of θ = 60° with the tangent to its orbit. Current solar sails may be about 40 m on a side, but the hope is to construct some that are about 160 m on a side. Estimate the impactor’s tangential acceleration when it is about 1 AU from the Sun. Keep in mind that the sail is neither a perfect absorber nor a perfect reflector, and a heavier impactor would presumably be equipped with a larger sail. Don’t be surprised by what may seem like a very small acceleration.

chocolatesnail205

An important question to consider when thinking about globalwarming is, "If the ice sheets near the poles melt, how much willthe sea level rise?" This seems like a difficult question, giventhe odd shapes of both the ice sheets and the oceans. But there aresome accurate approximations that allow the answer to be estimatedfairly accurately with reasonably simple calculations.

The critical idea is that both the thickness of the ice sheets andthe amounts of the sea-level rise are extremely small compared tothe radius of the earth. The radius of the earth is about 2/p x 107m -- more than 6000 kilometers. The ice sheet thicknesses we willbe concerned with are single digit miles and the sea level riseswill be in dozens of feet. As a result, in thinking about them, wecan essentially ignore the curvature of the earth. We can imaginepeeling the map of the earth off a globe and flattening it out (bymaking cuts, not by stretching it, so that we preserve the area).Then, both the ice and the sea level rise can be treated as right(not tilted) cylinders (though with funny shaped bases and tops).Since we know that the volume of a right cylinder is the area ofthe base times the height, we can easily estimate all the volumeswe need. A schematic picture of this approximation (with the heightof the ice mass greatly exaggerated -- you couldn't see it if Ididn't) is shown below. The error in these approximations is on theorder of the height of the cylinder considered divided by theradius of the earth; a very small number.
a. Assume that (after flattening the surface of the earth in ourimaginations) the ice sheet to be considered covers an area, A, andhas a thickness, d. The oceans currently cover about 75% of theearth's surface, and note that the surface area of a sphere is 4pr2where r is the radius of the sphere.

Generate an equation that will allow you to calculate h, the heightthe ocean levels will rise due to the melting of a an ice sheet interms of A, d, and r

b. As shown in the combined satellite photo on the right (fromGoogle Earth), Greenland is covered by a sheet of ice. This ice hasbeen measured to have a mean thickness of about 2 km. Recentobservations indicate that this ice sheet is beginning to retreat-- that it is melting at an accelerating rate.

Using the depth of the ice sheet and the scale given on thepicture, estimate how much sea level rise would be produced by themelting of the entire ice sheet lying on Greenland. (Note: You caneasily look this information up on the web. But the goal of thisproblem is in part to develop your estimation skills for thepurpose of building your ability to decide for yourself whether anygiven piece of information you find on the web is reasonable orbogus.)

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions, genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense.

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

ell25

PHILOS 2 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Definition

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PHILOS 2 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Scoot, Determinism, Definition

PHILOS 2 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Grandfather Paradox

PHILOS 2 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Monism, Logical Form, Natural Number

Related Questions