3 deleted 64 characters in body
source | link

The first mention of this I have seen is in Aristotles Generation & Corruption; he suggests that according to Democritus, even if the space between a lamp and a wall was completely voidDe Anima, light will be still cast onto the wall.:

419a15 For Democritus did not speak rightly, thinking that if the intervening space were to become a void, then even if an ant were in the sky it would be seen accurately; for this is impossible.

For seeing takes place when that which can perceive is affected by something. Now it is impossible for it to be affected by the actual colour which is seen; it remains for it to be affected by that which is intervening.

But if it were to become a void, not only should we not see accurately, but we would see nothing at all.

Aristotle disagrees with this, and states if the space between the lamp and the wall was properly void nothing, including light, would reach the wall; he's implicitly saying that Democritus notion is actually a vacuum and not a void - he goe'sA goes into this in more detail of this in his Physics.

It's this notion thats later codified into the principle of locality, of which there are a few variants.

Notably for Aristotle cause need not be temporal, and his definition of cause does not mention either time or space but merely change; however he does earlier admit that change is an aspect of time.

The first mention of this I have seen is in Aristotles Generation & Corruption; he suggests that according to Democritus, even if the space between a lamp and a wall was completely void, light will be still cast onto the wall.

Aristotle disagrees with this, and states if the space between the lamp and the wall was properly void nothing, including light, would reach the wall; he's implicitly saying that Democritus notion is actually a vacuum and not a void - he goe's into more detail of this in his Physics.

It's this notion thats later codified into the principle of locality, of which there are a few variants.

Notably for Aristotle cause need not be temporal, and his definition of cause does not mention either time or space but merely change; however he does earlier admit that change is an aspect of time.

The first mention of this I have seen is in Aristotles De Anima:

419a15 For Democritus did not speak rightly, thinking that if the intervening space were to become a void, then even if an ant were in the sky it would be seen accurately; for this is impossible.

For seeing takes place when that which can perceive is affected by something. Now it is impossible for it to be affected by the actual colour which is seen; it remains for it to be affected by that which is intervening.

But if it were to become a void, not only should we not see accurately, but we would see nothing at all.

A goes into this in more detail in his Physics.

It's this notion thats later codified into the principle of locality, of which there are a few variants.

2 added 202 characters in body
source | link

The first mention of this I have seen is in Aristotles Generation & Corruption; he suggests that according to Democritus, even if the space between a lamp and a wall was completely void, light will be still cast onto the wall.

Aristotle disagrees with this, and states if the space between the lamp and the wall was properly void nothing, including light, would reach the wall; he's implicitly saying that Democritus notion is actually a vacuum and not a void - he goe's into more detail of this in his Physics.

It's this notion thats later codified into the principle of locality, of which there are a few variants.

Notably for Aristotle cause need not be temporal, and his definition of cause does not mention either time or space but merely change; however he does earlier admit that change is an aspect of time.

The first mention of this I have seen is in Aristotles Generation & Corruption; he suggests that according to Democritus, even if the space between a lamp and a wall was completely void, light will be still cast onto the wall.

Aristotle disagrees with this, and states if the space between the lamp and the wall was properly void nothing, including light, would reach the wall; he's implicitly saying that Democritus notion is actually a vacuum and not a void - he goe's into more detail of this in his Physics.

It's this notion thats later codified into the principle of locality, of which there are a few variants.

The first mention of this I have seen is in Aristotles Generation & Corruption; he suggests that according to Democritus, even if the space between a lamp and a wall was completely void, light will be still cast onto the wall.

Aristotle disagrees with this, and states if the space between the lamp and the wall was properly void nothing, including light, would reach the wall; he's implicitly saying that Democritus notion is actually a vacuum and not a void - he goe's into more detail of this in his Physics.

It's this notion thats later codified into the principle of locality, of which there are a few variants.

Notably for Aristotle cause need not be temporal, and his definition of cause does not mention either time or space but merely change; however he does earlier admit that change is an aspect of time.

1
source | link

The first mention of this I have seen is in Aristotles Generation & Corruption; he suggests that according to Democritus, even if the space between a lamp and a wall was completely void, light will be still cast onto the wall.

Aristotle disagrees with this, and states if the space between the lamp and the wall was properly void nothing, including light, would reach the wall; he's implicitly saying that Democritus notion is actually a vacuum and not a void - he goe's into more detail of this in his Physics.

It's this notion thats later codified into the principle of locality, of which there are a few variants.