DOCSLIB.ORG

Symmetry, Indiscernibility, and the Generalist Picture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Symmetry, Indiscernibility, and the Generalist Picture Symmetry, Indiscernibility, and the Generalist Picture Thomas Møller-Nielsen Balliol College, University of Oxford Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Michaelmas Term, 2015 i Abstract This thesis consists of four independent but thematically interrelated papers, plus an addendum to one of these papers. Chapter 1 defends the view that Leibniz subscribed to generalism, or the view that the world is fundamentally purely qualitative in character. In particular, I respond to Cover & O’Leary-Hawthorne’s (1999) claim that Leibniz’s use of symmetry considerations in the correspondence with Clarke reveals that he was not a generalist. In addition, I claim that what reveals Leibniz’s generalism is not — as many scholars seem to believe — his mere commitment to his theory of truth, theory of complete individual substances and Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII). Rather, I argue, it is the fact that Leibniz claimed to derive the PII from his theories of truth and complete individual substances which ultimately demonstrates his commitment to generalism. Chapter 2 examines the putative relationship between two notions: symme- try and qualitativity. I argue that, on the standard metaphysical construal of the notion of qualitativity, a widely-held view about the relationship between these two notions is mistaken. However, I also argue that on a nonstandard construal of the notion of qualitativity due to Ismael & van Fraassen (2003), the alleged relationship between the two notions holds much more promise. I finish by expanding upon Ismael & van Fraassen’s own account of the notion of qualitativity relevant to the notion of symmetry, and in doing so I attempt to elucidate the methodology of symmetry reasoning in physics more generally. This chapter is followed by a brief addendum. Here, I discuss two recent independent proposals — due to Adam Caulton (forthcoming) and Shamik Dasgupta (forthcoming, a) — for understanding the methodology of symmetry reasoning that are prima facie very similar to the view that I defend at the end of Chapter 2. I argue that both proposals differ from my own, and each other, in subtle but nevertheless highly non-trivial respects. Chapter 3 argues that the focus of much contemporary discussion concerning the proper role and philosophical significance of a modern-day version of the PII is misplaced. More specifically, I argue that metaphysicians’ criticism of the notion of weak discernibility on the basis of its alleged inability to ground objects’ numerical diversity is orthogonal to Saunders’ (2003a) main concern in his original paper, which is to use the notion of weak discernibility as part of a broader program for interpreting physical theories. I subsequently assess this interpretative program, and suggest some reasons for thinking it implausible. Chapter 4 discusses a variety of recent objections to generalism. The objec- tions are related by the fact that all of them appeal, at some stage in the relevant line of argument, to the possibility of worlds containing qualitatively indis- ii cernible individuals. I argue that none of these objections ultimately succeed. Thus, I claim that a significant class of difficulties for the view is obviated. Lightly-edited versions of some of these chapters have already been accepted for publication. At the time of writing, Chapter 1 is forthcoming in Studia Leibnitiana; Chapter 2 (without the addendum) has appeared in Tomasz Bigaj and Christian Wuthrich’s¨ edited collection Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics (Amsterdam/New York, NY: Rodopi, 2015); and Chapter 3 is forthcoming in Ergo. Chapter 4 and the addendum to Chapter 2 are currently unpublished. This thesis is approximately 60,000 words long. iii Acknowledgements First and foremost, I wish to thank my current supervisors, Oliver Pooley and Simon Saunders. I am very grateful to both of them for reading my work so carefully, for being so generous with their time, and for their support. It has been a great privilege to know, and learn from, both of them. I am also grateful to several other Philosophy Faculty members at Oxford. Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra provided the original inspiration and encourage- ment to work on Chapter 1, while Harvey Brown, Chris Timpson and David Wallace have each, in their own ways, extended their kindness and support over the years. Of the philosophy graduate students here at Oxford, Neil Dewar, Joel En- twistle, Niels Martens, Joshua Melville, Tushar Menon, Carina Prunkl, James Read, Alex Robertson, Teru Thomas, Aron Vallinder, and Andy Yu all deserve special mention for providing helpful feedback on various aspects of this thesis. There are many other philosophers outside of Oxford who deserve my thanks. In particular, I have greatly benefitted from discussions and comments relating to material in this thesis from Gordon Belot, Adam Caulton, Shamik Dasgupta, Sam Fletcher, James Fraser, Steven French, Nick Huggett, Dennis Lehmkuhl, Keizo Matsubura, Patrick McGovern, Ed Perez, Joe Rachiele, Jim Weatherall, and Alistair Wilson. Comments from anonymous referees for the journals Studia Leibnitiana and Ergo have also greatly helped improve Chapters 1 and 3 respectively. As this thesis’ external examiner, James Ladyman de- serves special mention here: together with David Wallace—this thesis’ internal examiner, and a person to whom I am also especially grateful—he provided wonderfully detailed and insightful feedback on numerous parts of the thesis. Jeff Russell also deserves special mention, but for a different reason: he super- vised me for my first two years as a DPhil student. Undoubtedly, much of what is good about this thesis I owe to him. Finally, very special thanks to my family, and in particular to my parents. Needless to say, this thesis is dedicated to them. Contents Abstract i Acknowledgements iii Introduction 1 1 Was Leibniz a Generalist? 10 1.1 Generalism vs Singularism . 12 1.2 Generalist and Singularist Pressures in Leibniz . 15 1.2.1 Generalist Pressures in Leibniz . 15 1.2.2 Singularist Pressures in Leibniz . 29 1.3 Weak Haecceitism to the Rescue? . 34 1.4 The Received View Defended . 46 1.4.1 The claim that Leibniz took de re modal claims at face value 47 1.4.2 The claim that Leibniz’s use of “switching” considerations in his correspondence with Clarke reveals that he was not a generalist . 52 1.5 Conclusion . 63 2 Symmetry and Qualitativity 64 2.1 More on Symmetry and Qualitativity . 67 2.1.1 Symmetry . 67 2.1.2 Qualitativity . 71 2.2 Symmetries Do Not Only Relate Qualitatively Indiscernible So- lutions . 77 2.3 Symmetry and the Nonqualitative . 87 2.3.1 The First Problem . 87 2.3.2 The Second Problem . 92 2.4 A New Notion of “Qualitative”? . 101 iv Contents v Addendum to Chapter 2 110 Caulton . 111 Dasgupta . 121 3 Weak Discernibility, Again 129 3.1 Methodology, Not Metaphysics . 132 3.2 Three Questions . 142 3.3 The Na¨ıve Question . 143 3.4 The Epistemological Question . 144 3.5 The Metaphysical Question . 148 3.6 Conclusion . 155 4 Some General Worries, Discharged 157 4.1 The Standard Objection . 158 4.2 The Na¨ıve Objection . 161 4.3 The Metaphysical Discontinuity Objection . 164 4.4 The Motivation Objection . 167 4.5 The Greavesian Objection . 171 4.6 Lewisian Determinism? . 176 4.7 The Kmentian Objection . 183 References 198 Introduction This thesis is not a research monograph. Instead, it is comprised of four chapters (plus an addendum to one of these chapters), each of which is intended to be readable independently of the others. The chapters are, however, united by a common theme — more precisely, by three interrelated sub-themes: symmetry, indiscernibility, and the generalist picture. Let me explain. First, symmetry. We are all familiar with the notion of symmetry in its standard, geometrical sense. For instance, rotations by 90◦ are symmetries of a perfect square; rotations by 45◦ are not. This notion of symmetry will prove salient in Chapter 4, where I consider worlds which display a kind of geometrical symmetry up to a given moment in time, but which fail, as a matter of physical law, to exhibit the same symmetry thereafter. For the majority of this thesis, however, I will be interested in a quite different notion of symmetry: dynamical symmetry. Dynamical symmetries are slightly more abstract than geometrical symmetries. In brief, they are transformations which map solutions to solutions of a particular physical theory — they “preserve the laws”, in a (somewhat) sim- ilar manner to which geometrical symmetries preserve the structure of a given geometrical object. A large part of this thesis will focus on such symmetries’ “invariantist” construal, according to which only that structure which is left invariant under them is genuinely real. This invariantist construal of symmetry 1 Introduction 2 plays a key role in Chapters 1 and 2 of this thesis; it plays a smaller but still significant role in Chapter 3 as well (see page 134, fn 4 below). Second, indiscernibility. This notion is a notoriously slippery one in philos- ophy. A number of different kinds of thing can be indiscernible; and things can be indiscernible in a number of different ways. In this thesis, I will talk both of worlds and of various things within them as being indiscernible. My main focus, however, will be on the notion of qualitative indiscernibility: that is, indis- cernibility by qualitative predicates alone. In particular, much of this thesis will focus on versions of a principle most famously advocated by Leibniz, namely the Principle
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 the Concept of the Self in David Hume and the Buddha
    The Concept of the Self in David Hume and the Buddha Desh Raj Sirswal The concept of the self is a highly contested topic. Traditionally it belonged to speculative metaphysics. Almost every philosopher, whether Western or Indian, has tried to explore the nature of self. Generally, the self is taken as a substance which has permanent existence, which is eternal and non-specio-temporal. In some traditions, like the Hindu tradition, it is believed to take rebirth as the body perishes. Many Western philosophers also think that it is immortal. The nature of the self also has then ethical implications. The views of David Hume and Gautama Buddha on the self, which I have chosen to discuss here, are similar. Though both belong to different traditions, both are skeptical of any permanent existence of self. This is not to say that one has borrowed from the other. For the nature and purpose of denial of the self in both the philosophers is different. So a comprehensive and comparative study of their views is very interesting. It is the intention of this article to analyze and compare the philosophical positions of Gautama and Hume on the self—a problem which was of central concern to both and which has since exercised a continuing fascination for philosophers, both of the East and the West. Analysis of Hume’s Views on Self According to empiricism, human intellect and experiences are limited; so we cannot know of the absolute. David Hume, an eminent empiricist, concludes that the self is merely a composition of successive impressions.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Science -----Paulk
    PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE -----PAULK. FEYERABEND----- However, it has also a quite decisive role in building the new science and in defending new theories against their well-entrenched predecessors. For example, this philosophy plays a most important part in the arguments about the Copernican system, in the development of optics, and in the Philosophy ofScience: A Subject with construction of a new and non-Aristotelian dynamics. Almost every work of Galileo is a mixture of philosophical, mathematical, and physical prin~ a Great Past ciples which collaborate intimately without giving the impression of in­ coherence. This is the heroic time of the scientific philosophy. The new philosophy is not content just to mirror a science that develops independ­ ently of it; nor is it so distant as to deal just with alternative philosophies. It plays an essential role in building up the new science that was to replace 1. While it should be possible, in a free society, to introduce, to ex­ the earlier doctrines.1 pound, to make propaganda for any subject, however absurd and however 3. Now it is interesting to see how this active and critical philosophy is immoral, to publish books and articles, to give lectures on any topic, it gradually replaced by a more conservative creed, how the new creed gener­ must also be possible to examine what is being expounded by reference, ates technical problems of its own which are in no way related to specific not to the internal standards of the subject (which may be but the method scientific problems (Hurne), and how there arises a special subject that according to which a particular madness is being pursued), but to stan­ codifies science without acting back on it (Kant).
    [Show full text]
  • The Experimental Verdict on Spacetime from Gravity Probe B
    The Experimental Verdict on Spacetime from Gravity Probe B James Overduin Abstract Concepts of space and time have been closely connected with matter since the time of the ancient Greeks. The history of these ideas is briefly reviewed, focusing on the debate between “absolute” and “relational” views of space and time and their influence on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, as formulated in the language of four-dimensional spacetime by Minkowski in 1908. After a brief detour through Minkowski’s modern-day legacy in higher dimensions, an overview is given of the current experimental status of general relativity. Gravity Probe B is the first test of this theory to focus on spin, and the first to produce direct and unambiguous detections of the geodetic effect (warped spacetime tugs on a spin- ning gyroscope) and the frame-dragging effect (the spinning earth pulls spacetime around with it). These effects have important implications for astrophysics, cosmol- ogy and the origin of inertia. Philosophically, they might also be viewed as tests of the propositions that spacetime acts on matter (geodetic effect) and that matter acts back on spacetime (frame-dragging effect). 1 Space and Time Before Minkowski The Stoic philosopher Zeno of Elea, author of Zeno’s paradoxes (c. 490-430 BCE), is said to have held that space and time were unreal since they could neither act nor be acted upon by matter [1]. This is perhaps the earliest version of the relational view of space and time, a view whose philosophical fortunes have waxed and waned with the centuries, but which has exercised enormous influence on physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Spacetime Structure
    Classical Spacetime Structure James Owen Weatherall Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science University of California, Irvine Abstract I discuss several issues related to \classical" spacetime structure. I review Galilean, Newto- nian, and Leibnizian spacetimes, and briefly describe more recent developments. The target audience is undergraduates and early graduate students in philosophy; the presentation avoids mathematical formalism as much as possible. 1. Introduction One often associates spacetime|a four-dimensional geometrical structure representing both space and time|with relativity theory, developed by Einstein and others in the early part of the twentieth century.1 But soon after relativity theory appeared, several authors, such as Hermann Weyl (1952 [1918]), Elie´ Cartan (1923, 1924), and Kurt Friedrichs (1927), began to study how the spatio-temporal structure presupposed by classical, i.e., Newtonian, physics could be re-cast using the methods of four-dimensional geometry developed in the context of relativity. These reformulations of classical physics were initially of interest for the insight they offered into the structure of relativity theory.2 But this changed in 1967, when Howard Stein proposed that the notion of a \classical" spacetime could provide important insight arXiv:1707.05887v1 [physics.hist-ph] 18 Jul 2017 Email address: [email protected] (James Owen Weatherall) 1The idea of \spacetime" was actually introduced by Minkowski (2013 [1911]), several years after Einstein first introduced relativity theory. 2And indeed, they remain of interest for this reason: see, for instance, Friedman (1983), Malament (1986a,b, 2012), Earman (1989b), Fletcher (2014), Barrett (2015), Weatherall (2011a,b, 2014, 2017d,c), and Dewar and Weatherall (2017) for philosophical discussions of the relationship between relativity theory and Newtonian physics that make heavy use of this formalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Spacetime Is Probably a Substance Author(S): Tim Maudlin Reviewed Work(S): Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol
    Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Spacetime Is Probably a Substance Author(s): Tim Maudlin Reviewed work(s): Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Jun., 1993), pp. 183-203 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/188350 . Accessed: 28/12/2012 20:13 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press and Philosophy of Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy of Science. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:13:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Philosophy of Science June, 1993 BUCKETS OF WATER AND WAVES OF SPACE: WHY SPACETIME IS PROBABLY A SUBSTANCE* TIM MAUDLINtt Department of Philosophy Rutgers University This paper sketches a taxonomy of forms of substantivalism and relationism concerning space and time, and of the traditional arguments for these positions. Several natural sorts of relationism are able to account for Newton's bucket experiment. Conversely, appropriately constructed substantivalism can survive Leibniz's critique, a fact which has been obscured by the conflation of two of Leibniz's arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1704.03334V1 [Physics.Gen-Ph] 8 Apr 2017 Oin Ffltsaeadtime
    WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE GEOMETRY OF SPACE? B. E. EICHINGER Department of Chemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1700 Abstract. The belief that three dimensional space is infinite and flat in the absence of matter is a canon of physics that has been in place since the time of Newton. The assumption that space is flat at infinity has guided several modern physical theories. But what do we actually know to support this belief? A simple argument, called the ”Telescope Principle”, asserts that all that we can know about space is bounded by observations. Physical theories are best when they can be verified by observations, and that should also apply to the geometry of space. The Telescope Principle is simple to state, but it leads to very interesting insights into relativity and Yang-Mills theory via projective equivalences of their respective spaces. 1. Newton and the Euclidean Background Newton asserted the existence of an Absolute Space which is infinite, three dimensional, and Euclidean.[1] This is a remarkable statement. How could Newton know anything about the nature of space at infinity? Obviously, he could not know what space is like at infinity, so what motivated this assertion (apart from Newton’s desire to make space the sensorium of an infinite God)? Perhaps it was that the geometric tools available to him at the time were restricted to the principles of Euclidean plane geometry and its extension to three dimensions, in which infinite space is inferred from the parallel postulate. Given these limited mathematical resources, there was really no other choice than Euclid for a description of the geometry of space within which to formulate a theory of motion of material bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Space Substantivalism and Relationism Newton's Argument For
    6 Space Substantivalism and relationism abstract entities vs concrete entities. regions is commonly thought to be concrete but that isn’t in the category of material objects. realists would say regions or space do exist. Anti-realists about space would say, regions are an unnecessary addition. God creating the universe The realist about regions thinks that God has first to make an enormous container – the regions – in order to put the objects in. The anti-realist thinks that all God has to do to make the universe is make a bunch of objects, and then arrange them in a certain way. Those who are realists about regions are called substantivalists, whilst those who are anti- realists about regions are often called relationists. Newton’s argument for absolute space Dirction + Speed = velocity # Velocity + acceleration = innertial forces Newton’s bucket Newton’s argument for substantivalism – if velocity has to be relative to something, and acceleration is a change in velocity, then acceleration has to be relative to something as well. But, says Newton, it’s possible for one object to accelerate even though there’s no object that the acceleration could be relative to. But, as it must be relative to something, it must be relative to something that was not an object: it must be relative to space itself; ergo, space must exist. Stage 1: The rope is twisted but has not been let loose. The bucket and the water are at rest with respect to one another. Stage 2: The rope has been let loose and the bucket has started to rotate.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Hume Attempting to Introduce a New, Pragmatic
    doi: 10.5007/1808-1711.2016v20n3p315 IS HUME ATTEMPTING TO INTRODUCE A NEW,PRAGMATIC CONCEPTION OF A CONTRADICTION IN HIS TREATISE? ALAN SCHWERIN Abstract. Hume’s Treatise, with its celebrated bundle theory of the self, is a significant con- tribution to the embryonic Newtonian experimental philosophy of the enlightenment. But the theory is inadequate as it stands, as the appendix to the Treatise makes clear. For this account of the self, apparently, rests on contradictory principles — propositions, fortunately, that can be reconciled, according to Hume. My paper is a critical exploration of Hume’s argument for this intriguing suggestion. Keywords: Contradiction; Aristotle; law of non-contradiction; bundle theory; labyrinth; pragmatism; self; Treatise; experimental philosophy; appendix. In general, this work is full of original thoughts that have all the merit of singularity. Bibliothèque Raisonnée 1740 The bundle theory of the self that David Hume develops in section VI of his Treatise of Human Nature in 1739 is a bold, and provocative account of a person. As might be expected, the suggestion that an individual is, “nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions” (Hume 1978, p.252) has elicited a wide range of vigorous critical responses from many concerned thinkers, philosophers and non-philosophers alike.1 Ironically enough, the charge against the theory began immediately after its formulation — by its own author! Hume is the first to point out that his innovative account of a person, that is central to his conception of personal identity, has to contend with a number of serious problems. Most importantly, as far as Hume is concerned, his Treatise view of a person is incomplete as it stands: what is required is a more robust foundation with additional, unfortunately elusive principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Newton Vs. Leibniz: Intransparency Vs. Inconsistency
    Newton vs. Leibniz: Intransparency vs. Inconsistency Karin Verelst Vrije Universiteit Brussel1 [email protected] The only way to avoid becoming a metaphysician is to say nothing E.A. Burtt Abstract Introduction The early modern debates on the nature of space enjoy a renewed interest in the recent philosophical literature. Focal points of the discussion are the opposition between the “absolute” vs. the “relational ” conception of space and the related issue of its presumed substantival nature. Quintessential formulations of the key positions in the debate remain the viewpoints attributed to Newton and Leib- niz. But scholarly disagreement concerning them remains stark. Especially with respect to Newton the defended interpretations range from anti-metaphysical readings (based on the notorious “I do not feign hypotheses”) to at first glance almost theological readings that have him speculate about the relation between God and world. Leibniz, on the other hand, is presented as Newton’s counter- part, who sets out tackling mechanical problems with an a priori metaphysical scheme — inherited from Descartes — already laid out in his mind. But Newton arXiv:1203.2292v1 [physics.hist-ph] 10 Mar 2012 clearly conceived of himself as a natural philosopher [52, p. 2], while Leibniz, certainly in his earlier years, would have insisted on his use of strictly mechanical concepts only [10, Introduction]. We believe that, in order to be able to judge on the “metaphysical degree” of the positions taken by our protagonists, we should understand more clearly what metaphysics itself is about. This question is often ignored. We shall show 1FUND-CLEA, Dept. of Mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • Consciousness, Personal Identity, and the Self/No-Self Debate
    Information about the Conference: http://eng.iph.ras.ru/7_8_11_2016.htm RAS Institute of Philosophy Tibetan Culture and Information Center in Moscow First International Conference “Buddhism and Phenomenology” November 7–8, 2016 RAS Institute of Philosophy, Moscow Supported by: Save Tibet Foundation Christian Coseru University of Charleston, USA Consciousness, Personal Identity, and the Self/No-Self Debate Associate professor of philosophy in the Department of Philosophy at the College of Charleston. He works in the fields of philosophy of mind, Phenomenology, and cross-cultural philosophy, especially Indian and Buddhist philosophy in dialogue with Western philosophy and cognitive science. He is the author of Perceiving Reality: Consciousness, Intentionality and Cognition in Buddhist Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), which offers a defense of phenomenological naturalism in comparative philosophy of mind; he is currently completing another book manuscript on phenomenological and analytic philosophical perspectives on consciousness. Consciousness, Personal Identity, and the Self/No-Self Debate Christian Coseru University of Charleston, USA Buddhism and Phenomenology Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences Tibetan Culture and Information Center Moscow, November 7, 2016 2 Plan for the talk 1. A brief summary of what is at stake in the self/no-self debate. 2. Review some challenges no-self theories face in explaining self- consciousness and self-knowledge. 3. Consider whether no-self theories can adequately capture the many facets of self-experience and self-knowledge. 4. Propose a new model for the structure of phenomenal consciousness. 5. Conclusion: Buddhism and Phenomenology: Allies or Rivals? 3 The Conundrum • Premise: Buddhist conceptions of personal identity rest on the no- self view (akin to Hume’s “bundle theory of self”).
    [Show full text]
  • Space, Time and Einstein
    Space, Time and Einstein Space, Time and Einstein An Introduction J. B. Kennedy © J. B. Kennedy 2003 This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. No reproduction without permission. All rights reserved. First published in 2003 by Acumen Acumen Publishing Limited 15A Lewins Yard East Street Chesham HP5 1HQ www.acumenpublishing.co.uk ISBN: 1-902683-66-8 (hardcover) ISBN: 1-902683-67-6 (paperback) British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Designed and typeset by Kate Williams, Abergavenny. Printed and bound by Biddles Ltd., Guildford and King’s Lynn. For Carole and John Crascall Contents Preface and acknowledgements ix Part I: Einstein’s revolution 1 1 From Aristotle to Hiroshima 3 2 Einstein in a nutshell 7 3 The twin paradox 31 4 How to build an atomic bomb 40 5 The four-dimensional universe 50 6 Time travel is possible 66 7 Can the mind understand the world? 71 Part II: Philosophical progress 75 8 Who invented space? 77 9 Zeno’s paradoxes: is motion impossible? 92 10 Philosophers at war: Newton vs. Leibniz 104 11 The philosophy of left and right 126 12 The unreality of time 133 13 General relativity: is space curved? 139 14 The fall of geometry: is mathematics certain? 149 15 The resurrection of absolutes 159 16 The resilience of space 172 vii SPACE, TIME AND EINSTEIN Part III: Frontiers 175 17 Faster than light: was Einstein wrong? 177 18 The Big Bang: how did the universe begin? 185 19 Black holes: trapdoors to nowhere 188 20 Why haven’t aliens come visiting? 193 21 The inflationary and accelerating universe 197 22 Should we believe the physicists? 202 Appendix A: Spacetime diagrams 207 Appendix B: Symmetry and Lorentz’s minority interpretation 222 Appendix C: Simple formulas for special relativity 225 Appendix D: Websites 227 Appendix E: Guide to further reading 229 Index 239 viii Preface and acknowledgements The ongoing revolution in our understanding of space and time is so central to the drama of our times that no educated person can remain ignorant of it.
    [Show full text]
  • SPACE, TIME, and (How They) MATTER: a Discussion of Some Metaphysical Insights About the Nature of Space and Time Provided by Our Best Fundamental Physical Theories
    SPACE, TIME, AND (how they) MATTER: A Discussion of Some Metaphysical Insights about the Nature of Space and Time Provided by Our Best Fundamental Physical Theories Valia Allori Northern Illinois University Forthcoming in: J. Statchel, G.C. Ghirardi (eds.). Space, Time, and Frontiers of Human Understanding. Springer-Verlag Abstract This paper is a brief (and hopelessly incomplete) non-standard introduction to the philosophy of space and time. It is an introduction because I plan to give an overview of what I consider some of the main questions about space and time: Is space a substance over and above matter? How many dimensions does it have? Is space-time fundamental or emergent? Does time have a direction? Does time even exist? Nonetheless, this introduction is not standard because I conclude the discussion by presenting the material with an original spin, guided by a particular understanding of fundamental physical theories, the so-called primitive ontology approach. 1. Introduction Scientific realists believe that our best scientific theories could be used as reliable guides to understand what the world is like. First, they tell us about the nature of matter: for instance, matter can be made of particles, or two-dimensional strings, or continuous fields. In addition, whatever matter fundamentally is, it seems there is matter in space, which moves in time. The topic of this paper is what our best physical theories tell us about the nature of space and time. I will start in the next section with the traditional debate concerning the question of whether space is itself a substance or not.
    [Show full text]