Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:31:00.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Albert Einstein Meets David Lewis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Jeremy Butterfield
Jeremy Butterfield*
Affiliation:
Cambridge University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With help from Einstein, John Norton and John Earman (1987; this volume) have invented a fascinating argument against spacetime substantivalism. It gives the philosophy of space and time a refreshing stimulus: all credit to them. The idea of the argument is that substantivalism rules out determinism, even of very weak kinds. Norton and Earman have no special brief to defend determinism. But they believe that if it fails, it should fail for reasons of physics that vary from case to case—it should not fail at a stroke for the sake of a philosophical doctrine such as substantivalism. They conclude that in the conflict between substantivalism and determinism, it is substantivalism that must go.

The conflict arises from ‘hole diffeomorphisms’. These enable us, once we are given a model for a spacetime theory, to produce another model.

Type
Part III. Natural Philosophy
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 65 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank my co-symposiasts, Philip Catton, John Earman, David Lewis, David Malament, Michael Redhead, Paul Teller and especially, John Norton and Roberto Torretti, for discussions and correspondence.

References

Benacerraf, P. (1965). “What Numbers Could Not Be”, Philosophical Review 74: 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. (1987). “Substantivalism and Determinism”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2: 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. (1989). “The Hole Truth”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (1977). “Leibnizean Spacetimes and Leibnizean Algebras”, in Historical and Philosophical Dimensions of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Butts, R. & Hintikka, J. (eds.). Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 93–112.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1986). A Primer on Determinism. Dordrecht; ReidelCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. and Norton, J. (1987). “What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Hole Story”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38:515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (1983). Foundations of Spacetime Theories. Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
Hawking, S. and Ellis, G. (1973). The Large-scale Structure of Spacetime, Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1968). “Counterpart Theory & Quantified Modal Logic”, Journal of Philosophy 65: 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1983). “New Work for a Theory of Universals”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61: 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (1989). “Substances and Space-Time: What Aristotle Would Have Said to Einstein”, forthcoming in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, T. (1989). “The Essence of Space-Time”, PSA 1988, Vol 2: 82–91.Google Scholar
Norton, J. (1989), “Coordinates and Covariance: Einstein's View of Spacetime and the Modern View”, forthcoming in Foundations of Physics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. (1989), “The Hole Argument”, PSA 1988, Vol. 2: 56–64.Google Scholar
Sachs, R. and Wu, H. (1977). General Relativity for Mathematicians, London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stachel, J. (1985), “What a Physicist can Learn from the Discovery of General Relativity”, Proceedings, 4the Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in General Relativity, Rome, Italy, 17-21 June.Google Scholar