[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

What's the philosophical reason for this stability?

The proper logical argumentation that we would find in philosophical logicians would be following:

1. Opposites eliminate each-other.
2. Opposites are always in equal quantities.
_______________________________________

3.Therefore, opposites always eliminate each-other completely.
4. By eliminating each-other completely, opposites make stability.
_______________________________________

5.Therefore, opposites make stability.

In philosophical logic we analyze arguments with a standardized methodology developed by Russell, Hilbert and similars: first check if it is valid, then if it is sound (sound means true). If someone finds that there is a fallacy in this argument, please let me know, but up to what I know it's valid. Now, is it sound? The soundness of an argument is based not on its conclusions or on its process statements; those are studied, but not basis: basis are the start arguments.

And science has already proven the two start arguments to be wrong and false. The first is wrong, because, as the law of thermodynamics states, no mass or energy can be destroyed, thus, its opposite can't eliminate them. And the second is wrong, because, as astronomical observations have proven, there is much less antimatter, than matter in the universe; some physicists (Brian Greene) even believe that the amounts of matter and antimatter where slightly different at the beginning of the universe; thus, it's not a correct statement. So anything derived from these two propositions is wrong and a fallacy.

But the final statement, the statement that opposites make stability, somehow, is not wrong. It is valid for both science and philosophy. Why, would philosophical minds ask, and how, would scientific minds ask, that this can be?

And the solution resides in the mayor problem between science and philosophy. It is that, when science takes statements from philosophy (for them to be true), they must be general, thus, they have no value for it. Whiles, if the statements, taken are precise, they are wrong. When philosophy takes statement from science (for them to be true), they must be precise; thus, they have no value for it. Whiles, if the statements taken are general, they are wrong.

So, science can take the statement, that opposites make stability, which is true for it, but not good at all. But if science takes the precise statement, that opposites eliminate each other and opposites are in equal quantities, then, they are wrong for it.

By the way, the paragraph describing the problem between statements of science and philosophy is aesthetically perfect, in my opinion, and good enough, definitely to be quoted by any contemporary thinker. Or probably one of those physicists that have knowledge but no wisdom, and sell books and become millionaires, and take all the things in the book from others, so I hope none comes and reads my precious paragraph.