More Percise Thread about Ice Battery

Okay here me out. The last thread about my Ice Battery thread tanked. I will give more information to discuss. My logic in reasoning this was based off of Aristotle's 4 causes (i.e. what causes things to be). Here are the 4 causes.

1. Material Cause
2. Formal Cause
3. Efficient Cause
4. Final Cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

While the Ice Wall and Ice Battery are similar in the first 3 causes, they differ in the fourth. Final causation is what good (or function) a thing does. If the final causes differ, the two things would actually be two different things. If they are different they should be defined as such. That is taking into consideration the 4 causes, which I think are pretty authoritative. This makes it incorrect to say the Ice Wall always has existed because there was a period of time where there was a Ice Battery. As I defined in the defunct Ice Battery thread:

But you see, its function changes. In the ice ages it is not simply a barrier but a battery. It stores water for later use.

I think this is a very important point. Think hard, people, and discuss.

Are you trying to say that two things can't have two final purposes, otherwise they would be two different things?

Like my supercar (theoretically) would either have a final purpose of transportation, or getting me easy sex, but not both?


Whats wrong with saying that the Ice Wall has actually just been an Ice Battery all along and the battery part was its main purpose, and that the holding back of the oceans was just an intrinsic function?

Whats wrong with saying that the Ice Wall has actually just been an Ice Battery all along and the battery part was its main purpose, and that the holding back of the oceans was just an intrinsic function?

How can an ice wall hold back water when ice floats in water?  It's the land mass under the ice that holds back the water.

So why do we call it an "ice wall" if it is actually a land mass with ice on it? I would think that the land mass, if there is one, could still be rather deep under the water while the ice sits on top and forms the rest of the wall. If you look at an iceberg, theres usually only around 10-25% showing above the water. If the so called "ice wall" is 150 ft tall, that would be reason to believe that it extends into the water quite a ways. So if this were true, then the ice part of the wall would still be holding back a considerable amount of water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg

So why do we call it an "ice wall" if it is actually a land mass with ice on it? I would think that the land mass, if there is one, could still be rather deep under the water while the ice sits on top and forms the rest of the wall. If you look at an iceberg, theres usually only around 10-25% showing above the water. If the so called "ice wall" is 150 ft tall, that would be reason to believe that it extends into the water quite a ways. So if this were true, then the ice part of the wall would still be holding back a considerable amount of water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg

But it's not. It's land.

Are you trying to say that two things can't have two final purposes, otherwise they would be two different things?

Like my supercar (theoretically) would either have a final purpose of transportation, or getting me easy sex, but not both?


Whats wrong with saying that the Ice Wall has actually just been an Ice Battery all along and the battery part was its main purpose, and that the holding back of the oceans was just an intrinsic function?

I am not saying things can't have more than one purpose. But at some point this Ice Wall would stop functioning as a wall almost entirely. It would then primarily store water. It would be like calling current day Russia the Soviet Union.

But it's not. It's land.
[/quote]

You know this how? So there is no snow or ice now? Its entirely land?

Grogberries, when would this "wall" stop functioning as a wall almost entirely?

Quote from: Raist on February 23, 2009, 11:08:08 AM

But it's not. It's land.

You know this how? So there is no snow or ice now? Its entirely land?

Grogberries, when would this "wall" stop functioning as a wall almost entirely?




[/quote]

There's obviously snow and ice on top of it being so far south, but it is land because that is what it is.

Just because your idea would fit the name doesn't mean it fits reality.

Quote from: WailingFungus on February 23, 2009, 08:07:38 PM

Quote from: Raist on February 23, 2009, 11:08:08 AM

But it's not. It's land.

You know this how? So there is no snow or ice now? Its entirely land?

Grogberries, when would this "wall" stop functioning as a wall almost entirely?

because that is what it is.

[/quote]

I like your reasoning!  So if land is in fact holding back all of the water, then why are we even debating whether or not the "ice wall" has two purposes? In this case it would be strictly used to store water.

I'm becoming quite confused...

The storing water theory is retarded and adds nothing to anything. It has ice and therefore will store water, but that is just a consequence of its existence and I have no idea what the point of this whole discussion is. Yes ice holds water.

Alrighty then.