Online research in philosophy

By using some classical reasoning we show that any countably presented formal topology, namely, a formal topology with a countable axiom set, is spatial.

Preface -- Foreword -- First talk in the Oak Grove -- Second talk in the Oak Grove -- Third talk in the Oak Grove -- Fourth talk in the Oak Grove -- Fifth talk in the Oak Grove -- Sixth talk in the Oak Grove -- Seventh talk in the Oak Grove -- Eighth talk in the Oak Grove.

We are used to regarding actions and other events, such as Brutus’ stabbing of Caesar or the sinking of the Titanic, as occupying intervals of some underlying linearly ordered temporal dimension. This attitude is so natural and compelling that one is tempted to disregard the obvious difference between time periods and actual happenings in favor of the former: events become mere “intervals cum description”.1 On the other hand, in ordinary circumstances the point of talking about time is to talk about what actually happens or might happen at some time or another. We talk about ‘now’ and ‘then’ in an effort to put some order in our description of what goes on. And since different events seem to overlap in so many different ways, a full account of their temporal relations seems to run afoul of a reductionist strategy. This raises two philosophical questions. The first is whether we can actually go beyond time, as it were, i.e., whether we can take events as bona fide entities and deal with them directly, just as we can deal with spatial entities such as physical bodies or masses without confining ourselves to their spatial representations. This is a controversial issue (though probably not as controversial as it used to be), and ties in with a number of unsettled problems concerning, e.g., the structure of causality or the definition of adequate identity and individuation criteria for events. 2 The second question is whether we can perhaps do without time, i.e., whether we can dispense with time points or intervals as an independent ontological category and focus only on actual or potential happenings, in opposition to the form of reductionism mentioned above—in short, whether we can account for the temporal dimension in terms of suitable relations among events. This is also a highly controversial issue, and relates to the classical dispute concerning relational vs. absolutist conceptions of (space and) time.3 It is this second question that we intend to focus on here..

Must space be a unity? This question, which exercised Aristotle, Descartes and Kant, is a specific instance of a more general one; namely, can the topology of physical space change with time? In this paper we show how the discussion of the unity of space has been altered but survives in contemporary research in theoretical physics. With a pedagogical review of the role played by the Euler characteristic in the mathematics of relativistic spacetimes, we explain how classical general relativity (modulo considerations about energy conditions) allows virtually unrestrained spatial topology change in four dimensions. We also survey the situation in many other dimensions of interest. However, topology change comes with a cost: a famous theorem by Robert Geroch shows that, for many interesting types of such change, transitions of spatial topology imply the existence of closed timelike curves or temporal non-orientability. Ways of living with this theorem and of evading it are discussed.

Discussions of the nature of time, and of various issues related to time, have always featured prominently in philosophy, but they have been especially important since the beginning of the 20th Century. This article contains a brief overview of some of the main topics in the philosophy of time — Fatalism; Reductionism and Platonism with respect to time; the topology of time; McTaggart's arguments; The A Theory and The B Theory; Presentism, Eternalism, and The Growing Universe Theory; time travel; and the 3D/4D controversy — together with some suggestions for further reading on each topic, and a bibliography.

The purpose of this paper is to survey the possible topologies of branching space-times, and, in particular, to refute the popular notion in the literature that a branching space-time requires a non-Hausdorff topology.

The standard mathematical account of the sub-metrical geometry of a space employs topology, whose foundational concept is the open set. This proves to be an unhappy choice for discrete spaces, and offers no insight into the physical origin of geometrical structure. I outline an alternative, the Theory of Linear Structures, whose foundational concept is the line. Application to Relativistic space-time reveals that the whole geometry of space-time derives from temporal structure. In this sense, instead of spatializing time, Relativity temporalizes space.

In an ω1-saturated nonstandard universe a cut is an initial segment of the hyperintegers which is closed under addition. Keisler and Leth in [KL] introduced, for each given cut U, a corresponding U-topology on the hyperintegers by letting O be U-open if for any x ∈ O there is a y greater than all the elements in U such that the interval $\lbrack x - y, x + y\rbrack \subseteq O$ . Let U be a cut in a hyperfinite time line H, which is a hyperfinite initial segment of the hyperintegers. The U-monad topology of H is the quotient topology of the U-topological space H modulo U. In this paper we answer a question of Keisler and Leth about the U-monad topologies by showing that when H is κ-saturated and has cardinality κ, (1) if the coinitiality of U1 is uncountable, then the U1-monad topology and the U2-monad topology are homeomorphic iff both U1 and U2 have the same coinitiality; and (2) H can produce exactly three different U-monad topologies (up to homeomorphism) for those U's with countable coinitiality. As a corollary H can produce exactly four different U-monad topologies if the cardinality of H is ω1.

Extending work of Wittgenstein, Lakoff and Johnson I suggest that it is the (spatial) metaphors we rely on in order to conceptualise time that provide an illusory space for time-travel-talk. For example, in the “Moving Time” spatialisation of time, “objects” move past the agent from the future to the past. The objects all move in the same direction – this is mapped to time always moving in the same direction. But then it is easy to imagine suspending this rule, and asking why the objects should not start moving in the opposite direction. This is one way of generating the idea of time-travel “back” into the past. Time-travel-talk essentially involves the unaware projection of fragments of our time-talk – taken from powerful conceptual metaphors – onto the nature of reality itself. Understanding this dissolves away the charm and attractions of such talk.

Zeeman argued that the Euclidean (i. e. manifold) topology of Minkowski space-time should be replaced by a strictly finer topology that was to have a closer connection with the indefinite metric. This proposal was extended in 1976 by Rudiger Göbel and Hawking, King and McCarthy to the space-times of General Relativity. It is the purpose of this paper to argue that these suggestions for replacement misrepresent the significance of the manifold topology and overstate the necessity for a finer topology. The motivation behind such arguments is a realist view of space-time topology as against (what can be construed to be) the instrumentalist position underlying some of the suggestions for replacement.