The multiple-world thought experiment and absolute space
Noûs 6 (3):266-273 (1972)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesM. L. G. Redhead (1992). Book Review:World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute Versus Relational Theories of Space and Time John Earman. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 59 (4):718-.
Robert A. Rynasiewicz (1995). Absolute Vs. Relational Theories of Space and Time: A Review of John Earman's ``World Enough and Space-Time''. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55 (3):675--87.
Michael A. Bishop (1999). Why Thought Experiments Are Not Arguments. Philosophy of Science 66 (4):534-541.
W. J. (1996). The Evidential Significance of Thought Experiment in Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 27 (2):233-250.
Robert Rynasiewicz, Newton's Views on Space, Time, and Motion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Ori Belkind (2007). Newton's Conceptual Argument for Absolute Space. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (3):271 – 293.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads5 ( #160,483 of 549,196 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
