DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1206.6297V1 [Physics.Hist-Ph] 25 Jun 2012 Osinit,Teuies Sapyia Object Physical a Is Universe the Experiment)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1206.6297V1 [Physics.Hist-Ph] 25 Jun 2012 Osinit,Teuies Sapyia Object Physical a Is Universe the Experiment) Draft version June 28, 2012 A Preprint typeset using LTEX style emulateapj v. 5/2/11 MODERN COSMOLOGY: ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITS Jai-chan Hwang1,2 1Department of Astronomy and Atmospheric Sciences, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 702-701, Republic of Korea 2Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul 130-722, Republic of Korea Draft version June 28, 2012 ABSTRACT Physical cosmology tries to understand the Universe at large with its origin and evolution. Ob- servational and experimental situations in cosmology do not allow us to proceed purely based on the empirical means. We examine in which sense our cosmological assumptions in fact have shaped our current cosmological worldview with consequent inevitable limits. Cosmology, as other branches of science and knowledge, is a construct of human imagination reflecting the popular belief system of the era. The question at issue deserves further philosophic discussions. In Whitehead’s words, “philosophy, in one of its functions, is the critic of cosmologies.” (Whitehead 1925) 1. SCIENCE AND COSMOLOGY by the external world.” Alexander Calder has mentioned that “the universe Although science is an effort to approximate phenom- is real but you can’t see it, you have to imagine it.” ena through models and to test those models, it is im- As an artist Calder’s universe may mean everything in portant to be aware of the difference between model and the world. Modern physical cosmology aims at under- reality. As remarked by Alfred North Whitehead, “the standing quantitatively the structure, origin and evolu- aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of com- tion (sometimes including future) of the Universe based plex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking on scientific methods (i.e., observation and experiment). that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest.” (Whitehead 1920) To scientists, the Universe is a physical object1 in the large-scale. However, regions in the Universe accessible 2. by observation and experiment are limited. The forbid- COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE den regions include outside our current cosmic horizon, In cosmology, in order to infer regions unknowable even time already passed in our past light-cone, and the far in principle, an assumption is necessary, which might future which has yet to come. Some of these regions are reflect our anticipation. An assumption that distribu- not just practically difficult to access, but they belong tion of matter in the large-scale is spatially homogeneous to the absolute limit of scientific knowledge which is in and isotropic is termed the cosmological principle, often principle inaccessible by observation or experiment. adopted in modern physical cosmology. Its origin can Of course, science is not simply based on observation be traced to Einstein’s paper in 1917, in which he has and experiment so innocently. If science were naively applied his newly introduced gravity theory to cosmol- based on observation and experiment, the science as we ogy in order to reconcile his theory with Mach’s principle know now may not be possible. On the contrary, science (Torretti 2000). Although even the presence of external in reality is more related with the art of ignoring and se- galaxies was not known at that time, Einstein assumed lecting observations, and manipulating experiments, in homogeneity and isotropy of space, and thus of the mat- accordance with a preconceived theory. Detailed obser- ter distribution, merely for the sake of mathematical sim- vation is often a hindrance to scientific reasoning. Ignore plicity. Notice that this is an assumption not based on apparent phenomena and grasp the essence. Thus, in what was observed. Perhaps Einstein did not expect that science theory often comes before observation. The trick this simple working assumption would have become a ba- is to treat the subject as an isolated, simplified, idealized sic principle in cosmology in future development. and abstract (preferably mathematized) model, and to In fact, the basic tenet of physics is that the laws of arXiv:1206.6297v1 [physics.hist-ph] 25 Jun 2012 test and materialize it by fitting data to a model using physics we know are valid always and everywhere. Thus, the method of analysis and statistical techniques. In this advocating the universality of the laws of physics reminds way, the individuality is lost. Modern cosmology shows us sort of the cosmological principle; this belief in univer- such a state of affairs well. After all, scientific cosmology sality is in general not testable. It is amusing to notice is nothing other than ‘the Universe imagined based on that assuming the general validity of the physical laws the “scientific” method.’ In fact, the situation of cosmol- in space and time is more similar to the perfect cosmo- ogy is not alone in science. In Albert Einstein’s words, logical principle, which adds the time invariance of the “physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, physical state of the Universe in addition to the cosmo- and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined logical principle. However, the perfect cosmological prin- ciple implemented in the steady-state theory is no longer popular in modern cosmology. 1 Professor Roberto Torretti objects calling the Universe as a “physical object”. According to him, “the epistemic counterpart Although in history the cosmological principle was ini- to artist Calder’s dictum would be something like: ‘The universe tially postulated theoretically without any reference to is real, but you can’t grasp it as an object, you have to think of it observations, one might wonder whether the assumption as a Kantian Idea’.” (Torretti 2011) on matter distribution can be tested through the ob- 2 servations. However, there are difficulties in practice, any potential dependence of the rate on the angular di- and often in principle. There can be some evidence of rection of the object in the sky. This is surely due to isotropy around us, but the test of homogeneity becomes the influence of the cosmological principle. Thus, even difficult as the scale increases. In addition, if we con- the observation is performed under direct influence of the sider the finite speed of light, even in a perfect observa- theory. In this case, the theory is nothing more than our tion, we cannot prove the homogeneity of space. Only assumed cosmological principle. through models we can agree on its plausibility. The ob- Motions of galaxies in clusters and the rotation speed served two-dimensional projected isotropy of the cosmic of disks in spiral galaxies are known to be too fast to microwave background radiation does not necessarily im- be bounded by luminous matter. Without substantial ply that the three-dimensional matter distribution is also amount of non-luminous matter present, galaxies and isotropic. Furthermore, examination beyond the horizon clusters are unstable and could be transient phenom- (light propagation distance during the age of the Uni- ena. Such non-luminous matter, only known through verse) is in principle impossible, and the cosmological gravity, is termed as ‘dark matter’. Such an interpreta- principle in those regions remains as an untestable as- tion, however, is based on the assumption that Newton’s sumption. As emphasized by George F. R. Ellis, “the (Einstein’s as well) gravity is valid in galactic and cluster problem [is that] there is only one universe to be ob- scales. This reflects our belief in the universality of phys- served, and we effectively can only observe it from one ical laws, and particularly our faith in Newton’s theory, space-time point. Given this situation, we are unable to which lead us to such a conclusion. But Newton’s the- obtain a model of the Universe without some specifically ory has never been tested on those scales; nor Einstein’s cosmological assumptions which are completely unverifi- gravity has yet been tested in cosmology. Therefore, dark able.” (Ellis 1975) In modern cosmology, the assumption matter is also a case where our belief system has affected refers to the cosmological principle. the interpretation of the observed results. Theoretically, without the cosmological principle, Einstein’s gravity is widely accepted as the gravity to physical cosmology becomes mathematically too compli- handle astronomical phenomena. The theory holds a re- cated to handle, and this practical difficulty might have markable track record in the solar-system test based on an important role in accepting this simple assumption. vacuum Schwarzschild solution and the parameterized Martin Rees has mentioned that “principles in cosmol- post-Newtonian approximation where the gravitational ogy have often connoted assumptions unsupported by fields are supposed to be weak. Although it is true that evidence, but without which the subject can make no Einstein’s theory has not failed in any experimental test progress.” based on modern scientific and technological develop- The cosmological principle still in large measure is a ment up till today, it is also true that there has been philosophical assumption, and is not based on obser- no experimental test of the theory in the strong gravita- vations or experiments as is often emphasized by the tional field and in large scale even including the galac- scientific method. Making assumptions is not a prob- tic scale. Cosmological application of Einstein’s theory lem. It is fine, as long as we are aware of this nature, requires 1015 factor (horizon scale divided by an astro- and try to examine the case in regions where testing is nomical unit) extrapolation compared with the experi- possible. From the observational side, efforts on tests mentally tested scale, which is surely a staggering ex- of whether the Universe is homogeneous (homogeneity trapolation. Einstein’s gravity is generally accepted in measure) and isotropic (isotropy measure), and whether cosmology mainly based on its successes in other astro- deviations from the homogeneity-isotropy are acceptable nomical and Earth bound tests and the theory’s own (linearity measure), should be continued.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Philosophy of Physics
    The Philosophy of Physics ROBERTO TORRETTI University of Chile PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014, Madrid, Spain © Roberto Torretti 1999 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1999 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Sabon 10.25/13 pt. System QuarkXPress [BTS] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available. 0 521 56259 7 hardback 0 521 56571 5 paperback Contents Preface xiii 1 The Transformation of Natural Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century 1 1.1 Mathematics and Experiment 2 1.2 Aristotelian Principles 8 1.3 Modern Matter 13 1.4 Galileo on Motion 20 1.5 Modeling and Measuring 30 1.5.1 Huygens and the Laws of Collision 30 1.5.2 Leibniz and the Conservation of “Force” 33 1.5.3 Rømer and the Speed of Light 36 2 Newton 41 2.1 Mass and Force 42 2.2 Space and Time 50 2.3 Universal Gravitation 57 2.4 Rules of Philosophy 69 2.5 Newtonian Science 75 2.5.1 The Cause of Gravity 75 2.5.2 Central Forces 80 2.5.3 Analytical
    [Show full text]
  • World, Senses, Human Spirit: Extrapolating the Direction from the Past Through the Present and Into the Future
    International Tinnitus Journal, Vol.ll, No.2, 103-105 (2005) EDITORIAL World, Senses, Human Spirit: Extrapolating the Direction from the Past Through the Present and Into the Future or human life, time is a specific monodirectional The Roman philosopher Lucius Aenaeus Seneca F dimension forcing us into serial development (4 Be - AD 65) then defined the phrase nihil in intel­ and behavior. We are living in the now, but we [ectu, quod non erat ante in sensu (from Naturales know that we stem from yesterday and that we are fac­ Quaestiones; "nothing can enter into the intellect if it ing the future: our tomorrow. With respect to bodily ex­ does not first pass through the gates of the senses"). In istence, every human seemingly has only one life. The this, Seneca coined the essentials of humans' communi­ human life can be regarded as constructing a wheel : We cation with the world and fellow men within the world. can imagine that year by year we fit a new spoke into We can encode from our surrounding things, facts , pic­ that circular element, a wheel that we call life and that tures, smells, odors, and sounds only after they have rolls us in only one direction, the future. Through de­ been perceived by our senses. veloping the species for many generations of humans, This really was an important philosophical step in many of these virtual wheels have been linked serially, the description of how human spirit works. All our un­ one behind the other. On the basis of culture and civili­ derstanding within our "now" needs information that zation, many humans have formed swarms of such arrives through the senses.
    [Show full text]
  • PHI 110 Lecture 2 1 Welcome to Our Second Lecture on Personhood and Identity
    PHI 110 Lecture 2 1 Welcome to our second lecture on personhood and identity. We’re going to begin today what will be two lectures on Rene Descartes’ thoughts on this subject. The position that is attributed to him is known as mind/body dualism. Sometimes it’s simply called the dualism for short. We need to be careful, however, because the word dualism covers a number of different philosophical positions, not always dualisms of mind and body. In other words, there are other forms of dualism that historically have been expressed. And so I will refer to his position as mind/body dualism or as Cartesian dualism as it’s sometimes also called. I said last time that Descartes is not going to talk primarily about persons. He’s going to talk about minds as opposed to bodies. But I think that as we start getting into his view, you will see where his notion of personhood arises. Clearly, Descartes is going to identify the person, the self, with the mind as opposed to with the body. This is something that I hoped you picked up in your reading and certainly that you will pick up once you read the material again after the lecture. Since I’ve already introduced Descartes’ position, let’s define it and then I’ll say a few things about Descartes himself to give you a little bit of a sense of the man and of his times. The position mind/body that’s known as mind/body dualism is defined as follows: It’s the view that the body is a physical substance — a machine, if you will — while the mind is a non-physical thinking entity which inhabits the body and is responsible for its voluntary movements.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato Aristotle Plato’S “Realm of Being”
    Plato Aristotle Plato’s “Realm of Being” P.58 "The philosopher's arithmetic applies precisely and strictly only to the world of Being". I am having a hard time understanding this part which seems to be Socrate's thinking. He is taking about equal and unequal units in math- where he says that the ordinary arithmetician operates with unequal units (becoming) and the philosopher with equal units (being). My question is: why does he think this and does that tell us something about how he sees the nature of numbers ultimately? — Loreta Plato’s “Realm of Being” If the realm is meant to be unchanging, and everything has a form, I find it hard to believe that the realm of being contains every possible object for the rest of time. But when new things such as computers are conceived into this world, does the realm of forms not change to account for a new concept? —Ariel Plato’s “Realm of Being” Just the other day I was thinking about why it is we dream of perfection and yet the world is never perfect in any regard. In that sense, I can understand why Plato posits that there is such thing as a world of Being and a World of Becoming, because I recognize the distinction. However, the World of Forms still seems to be a human's idealistic dream, something we believe will never exist in the physical world but is meant to exist anyway. I'm not sure if I can believe in something that is driven by just the idea of wanting it, since we dream of it.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 a REFUTATION of QUALIA-PHYSICALISM Michael
    1 To appear in M. O’Rourke and C. Washington (eds.), Situating Semantics: Essays on the Philosophy of John Perry (MIT Press) A REFUTATION OF QUALIA-PHYSICALISM Michael McKinsey Wayne State University Recent defenders of reductive physicalism such as Brian Loar (1990, 1997) and John Perry (2001) have adopted an intriguing new strategy:i (1) accept as so much common sense (nearly) everything that property-dualists want to say about sensory qualia, including the central claims that sensory qualia determine ‘what it’s like’ to have a given sense experience, and that persons are directly aware of these qualia in the having of such experiences; (2) contend that while these common sense facts about qualia may show that our ways of thinking and speaking about qualia are conceptually different from our ways of thinking and speaking about physical properties of the brain, these facts do not show that sensory qualia themselves (as opposed to our ways of thinking and speaking about them) are distinct from physical properties of the brain; (3) use this contention to turn aside the few existing arguments against reductive physicalism by such property dualists as Kripke (1972), Nagel (1974), Jackson (1982), and Chalmers (1996); and finally (4) insist that sensory qualia are in fact just identical with physical properties of the brain, so that consequently, the facts about the sensory qualities of conscious experience are nothing over and above physical facts about the brain. I will call the view that incorporates this strategy ‘qualia-physicalism’, or ‘Q-physicalism’ for short. In this paper I will argue that Q-physicalism is false.
    [Show full text]
  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Papers, 1646-1716
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt2779p48t No online items Finding Aid for the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Papers, 1646-1716 Processed by David MacGill; machine-readable finding aid created by Caroline Cubé © 2003 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid for the Gottfried 503 1 Wilhelm Leibniz Papers, 1646-1716 Finding Aid for the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Papers, 1646-1716 Collection number: 503 UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections Manuscripts Division Los Angeles, CA Processed by: David MacGill, November 1992 Encoded by: Caroline Cubé Online finding aid edited by: Josh Fiala, October 2003 © 2003 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Papers, Date (inclusive): 1646-1716 Collection number: 503 Creator: Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Freiherr von, 1646-1716 Extent: 6 oversize boxes Repository: University of California, Los Angeles. Library. Dept. of Special Collections. Los Angeles, California 90095-1575 Abstract: Leibniz (1646-1716) was a philosopher, mathematician, and political advisor. He invented differential and integral calculus. His major writings include New physical hypothesis (1671), Discourse on metaphysics (1686), On the ultimate origin of things (1697), and On nature itself (1698). The collection consists of 35 reels of positive microfilm of more than 100,000 handwritten pages of manuscripts and letters. Physical location: Stored off-site at SRLF. Advance notice is required for access to the collection. Please contact the UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections Reference Desk for paging information. Language: English. Restrictions on Use and Reproduction Property rights to the physical object belong to the UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Science Advance Effectively Through Philosophical Criticism and Reflection?
    Can science advance effectively through philosophical criticism and reflection? ROBERTO TORRETTI Universidad de Puerto Rico ABSTRACT Prompted by Hasok Chang’s conception of the history and philosophy of science (HPS) as the continuation of science by other means, I examine the possibility of obtaining scientific knowledge through philosophical criticism and reflection, in the light of four historical cases, concerning (i) the role of absolute space in Newtonian dynamics, (ii) the purported contraction of rods and retardation of clocks in Special Relativity, (iii) the reality of the electromagnetic ether, and (iv) the so-called problem of time’s arrow. In all four cases it is clear that a better understanding of such matters can be achieved —and has been achieved— through conceptual analysis. On the other hand, however, it would seem that this kind of advance has more to do with philosophical questions in science than with narrowly scientific questions. Hence, if HPS in effect continues the work of science by other means, it could well be doing it for other ends than those that working scientists ordinarily have in mind. Keywords: Absolute space – Inertial frames – Length contraction – Clock retardation – Special relativity – Ether – Time – Time directedness – Entropy – Boltzmann entropy Philosophical criticism and the advancement of science 2 The mind will not readily give up the attempt to apprehend the exact formal character of the latent connexions between different physical agencies: and the history of discovery may be held perhaps to supply the strongest reason for estimating effort towards clearness of thought as of not less importance in its own sphere than exploration of phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • Hasok Chang Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Apollo 1 Operational Coherence as the Source of Truth1 (version for publication, 14 February 2017) Hasok Chang Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge Abstract In this paper I seek to defend an epistemology that does not confine itself to the knowledge of propositions. The first section motivates this move, especially from the standpoint of the philosophy of science. The second section presents the notion of operational coherence as the key to understanding how knowledge resides in activities. The third section presents a proposal for making sense of truth on the basis of operational coherence. The final section briefly re- considers the relation between knowledge-as-ability and knowledge-as- information. 1. Knowledge beyond propositions The overall direction of this paper is to move beyond the propositional conception of knowledge. What I mean by that phrase is the widespread notion that knowledge (or at least the kind of knowledge that deserves the attention of epistemologists) consists in possessing the right sort of belief in the right sort of propositions.2 Without denying the importance of propositional knowledge, I want to pay attention to other aspects of what we commonly call knowledge, which cannot comfortably be fitted into a propositional framework. I will not pretend that the move I am making is a novel one, especially in this journal. 1 I would like to thank various members of the audience at the Aristotelian Society meeting of 9 January 2017 for helpful objections and suggestions, as well as encouragement.
    [Show full text]
  • Quine and Whitehead: Ontology and Methodology 3
    McHENRY I QUINE AND WHITEHEAD: ONTOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 3 philosophical scene as of late (e.g., deconstructionism, postmodem relativism), the and Whitehead: Ontology and gulf that separates Whitehead and analytical philosophy is not as great as it used to Quine 'be.3 Before I begin to explore the affinities, as well as some contrasts, between Methodology . Quine and Whitehead, a word of caution is in order. It is well known that Quine wrote his doctoral dissertation, "The Logic of Sequences: A Generalization of LeemonMcHenry Principia Mathematica," under Whitehead's direction.4 Quine also took two of Whitehead's seminars at Harvard,"Science and the Modem World" and "Cosmol­ I LEEMON McHENRY reaches philosophy at Loyola Marymount University, Los ogies Ancient and Modem," but he says that he "responded little to these courses" Angeles, CA 90045, E-mail: [email protected] and "took refuge in his relatively mathematical material on 'extensive abstrac­ tion. "'s Despite Quine's statement that he "retained a vivid sense of being in the presence of the great," he does not acknowledge any philosophical influence from · Introduction . the ph!losoph!es o!'W.V . Qu�e an d Whitehead. Rather, Camap and Russell are cited as the inspirations of Quine's The very idea· of a basis for comparing . , mcluding Qume himself. early development. A.N. Whitehead may be surprising to most philosophe� . philosophy two completely Both produced systems of thought that have taken m When Quine overlapped with Whitehead at Harvard, Whitehead was deeply at the forefron: of c�ntemp�­ involved in working out the details of his metaphysics of process--a philosophic different directions.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatic Realism†
    Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso Año 4 / 2016 / 2do semestre / N° 8 Págs. 107 - 122 ISSN 0719-4234 / eISSN 0719-4242 Pragmatic Realism† Hasok Chang* Abstract In this paper I seek to articulate and develop Roberto Torretti’s advocacy of pragmatic realism. At the core of Torrietti’s view is a rejection of the notion that the truth of scientific theories consists in their correspondence to the world. I propose to understand correspondence in that sense as a metaphorical notion. I articulate a notion of pragmatist coherence, on the basis of which I make new coherence theories of truth and reality. Then it becomes possible to say that pragmatic realism consists in the pursuit of true knowledge of reality, in a way that is also consonant with Torretti’s pluralism. Keywords: pragmatism, realism, pluralism, coherence, truth, reality Realismo Pragmático Resumen En este trabajo intento articular y desarrollar la defensa que Roberto Torretti hace del realismo pragmático. En el núcleo de la visión de Torretti existe un rechazo a la idea de que la verdad de las teorías científicas consista en su correspondencia con el mundo. Propongo entonces entender la correspondencia como una noción metafórica. Articularé una noción de coherencia pragmática sobre la cual establezco una nueva teoría de la coherencia entre verdad y realidad. __________________En consecuencia, resultará posible afirmar que el realismo pragmático † Recibido: octubre 2016. This paper is partly based on a presentation entitled “Pragmatist Coherence as the Source of Truth and Reality,” given at the sixth biennial conference of the Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice (SPSP) on 17 June 2016 at Rowan University.
    [Show full text]
  • A Re-Interpretation of the Concept of Mass and of the Relativistic Mass-Energy Relation
    A re-interpretation of the concept of mass and of the relativistic mass-energy relation 1 Stefano Re Fiorentin Summary . For over a century the definitions of mass and derivations of its relation with energy continue to be elaborated, demonstrating that the concept of mass is still not satisfactorily understood. The aim of this study is to show that, starting from the properties of Minkowski spacetime and from the principle of least action, energy expresses the property of inertia of a body. This implies that inertial mass can only be the object of a definition – the so called mass-energy relation - aimed at measuring energy in different units, more suitable to describe the huge amount of it enclosed in what we call the “rest-energy” of a body. Likewise, the concept of gravitational mass becomes unnecessary, being replaceable by energy, thus making the weak equivalence principle intrinsically verified. In dealing with mass, a new unit of measurement is foretold for it, which relies on the de Broglie frequency of atoms, the value of which can today be measured with an accuracy of a few parts in 10 9. Keywords Classical Force Fields; Special Relativity; Classical General Relativity; Units and Standards 1. Introduction Albert Einstein in the conclusions of his 1905 paper “Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?” (“Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content? ”) [1] says “The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content ”. Despite of some claims that the reasoning that brought Einstein to the mass-energy relation was somehow approximated or even defective (starting from Max Planck in 1907 [2], to Herbert E.
    [Show full text]
  • Creativity in the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead
    CREATIVITY IN WIDTEHEAD'S l\1ETAPHYSICS CREATIVITY IN THE METAPHYSICS OF ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD By JEFFREY A. MCPHERSON, B.A.(Hons.) A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts © Copyright by Jeffrey A. McPherson, SEPTEMBER, 1996 MASTER OF ARTS (1996) McMaster University (Religious Studies) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: Creativity in the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead. AUTHOR: Jeffrey A. McPherson, B.A.(Hons.) (York University) SUPERVISOR: Dr. J.C. Robertson, Jr. NUMBER OF PAGES: vi, 127 ii ABSTRACT This is a study of the role that creativity plays in the metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead ( 1861-1947). As the title generally indicates, there are two parts to this project. The first part develops an understanding of Whitehead's metaphysics through the careful analysis of two key texts, namely Religion in the Making ( 1926), and Process and Reality (1929). The second part examines and carefully analyses the role that creativity plays within this metaphysic. The second part focuses on two questions. The first question considers the ontological status which creativity requires to perform the role which it is given within the metaphysical system. The second question discusses implications of this status for creativity's relationship to God. This second section further discusses the implications of such an understanding of "process theology" for Christian theology in general. Specifically it comments on the various responses of theology to creatio ex nihilo and the problem of evil. This thesis concludes that creativity functions as an ultimate explanatory principle in Whitehead's metaphysics.
    [Show full text]