Why the parts of absolute space are immobile
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):391-407 (2008)
| Abstract | Newton's arguments for the immobility of the parts of absolute space have been claimed to licence several proposals concerning his metaphysics. This paper clarifies Newton, first distinguishing two distinct arguments. Then, it demonstrates, contrary to Nerlich ([2005]), that Newton does not appeal to the identity of indiscernibles, but rather to a view about de re representation. Additionally, DiSalle ([1994]) claims that one argument shows Newton to be an anti-substantivalist. I agree that its premises imply a denial of a kind of substantivalism, but I show that they are inconsistent with Newton's core doctrine that not all motion is the relative motions of bodies, and so conclude that they are not part of his considered views on space. The Arguments The Identity Argument 2.1 Identity of indiscernibles for individuals 2.2 Identity of indiscernibles for worlds and states 2.3 Representation de re Kinematic Relationism Conclusion CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? | |||||||||
| Keywords | substantivalism, Newton, motion, spacetime, space, Nerlich, DiSalle | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRobert Rynasiewicz, Newton's Views on Space, Time, and Motion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Edward Slowik (forthcoming). Newton's Neo-Platonic Ontology of Space. Foundations of Science.
Robert DiSalle (1992). Einstein, Newton and the Empirical Foundations of Space Time Geometry. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (3):181 – 189.
Edward Slowik (2009). Newton's Metaphysics of Space: A “Tertium Quid” Betwixt Substantivalism and Relationism, or Merely a “God of the (Rational Mechanical) Gaps”? Perspectives on Science 17 (4):pp. 429-456.
Richard Arthur (1994). Space and Relativity in Newton and Leibniz. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (1):219-240.
Ori Belkind (2007). Newton's Conceptual Argument for Absolute Space. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (3):271 – 293.
Graham Nerlich (2005). Can Parts of Space Move? On Paragraph Six of Newton's Scholium. Erkenntnis 62 (1):119--135.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads56 ( #17,815 of 549,113 )Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #4,233 of 549,113 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
