"Philosophy, if not the root of science, is at least the soil in which it grows," Alexandre Koyre, eminent historian of science, maintained at the annual Horblitt lecture last night. To substancetiate this view he analyzed Newton's philosophical objections to Cartesian science.

True philosophical motion for Descartes was that which transfers objects from a position relative to certain objects said to be at rest to a position adjacent to other stationary objects. This definition, Koyre noted, fulfilled a valuable tactical purpose.

Shortly before Descartes published his Principles of Philosophy, the Church had condemned Galileo for his belief in a moving earth cosmology. Descartes' definition enabled him to avoid condemnation by claiming that the earth is at rest in its vortex.

Newton, however, did not recognize the strategic value of the Cartesian definition, Koyre pointed out. Newton asserted that the "vulgar" concept of motion as something of absolute significance provides the necessary metaphysical foundation for scientific progress.

For Descartes, void space was nothing and therefore nonexistent. On the other hand, Newton conceived of the length, breadth, and depth of space as innate properties. Since space possessed absolute extension for Newton, he could not accept a finite Universe. Limits to the Universe should imply a meaningless space beyond.

Descartes termed space "indefinite," reserving the word "infinite" to describe a void. In Newton's mind, though, infinity lacked the Cartesian aura of perfection.

The Newton God, Koyre noted was an omnipresent one. God did not create space in Newton's system, but rather space was an emanation from him. Space was necessarily eternal, for a time at which space did not exist would imply a time when God was nowhere. The early metaphysical speculations and study of Descartes provided a basis for Newton's later scientific work, Koyre said in conclusion.