David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophy 106 (2):57-88 (2009)
We are used to talking about the “structure” posited by a given theory of physics. We say that relativity is a theory about spacetime structure. Special relativity posits one spacetime structure; different models of general relativity posit different spacetime structures. We also talk of the “existence” of these structures. Special relativity says the world’s spacetime structure is Minkowskian: it posits that this spacetime structure exists. Understanding structure in this sense seems important for understanding what physics is telling us about the world. But it is not immediately obvious just what this structure is, or what we mean by the existence of one structure, rather than another. The idea of mathematical structure is relatively straightforward. There is geometric structure, topological structure, algebraic structure, and so forth. Mathematical structure tells us how abstract mathematical objects t together to form different types of mathematical spaces. Insofar as we understand mathematical objects, we can understand mathematical structure. Of course, what to say about the nature of mathematical objects isn’t easy. But there seems to be no further problem for understanding mathematical structure. Modern theories of physics are formulated in terms of these mathematical structures. In order to understand “structure” as used in physics, then, it seems we must simply look at the structure of the mathematics that is used to state the physics. But it is not that simple. Physics is supposed to be telling us about the nature of the world. If our physical theories are formulated in mathematical language, using mathematical objects, then this mathematics is somehow telling us about the physical make-up of the world. What is..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Hans Halvorson (2012). What Scientific Theories Could Not Be. Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
L. A. Paul (2012). Building the World From its Fundamental Constituents. Philosophical Studies 158 (2):221-256.
Thomas William Barrett & Hans Halvorson (forthcoming). Glymour and Quine on Theoretical Equivalence. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-17.
Theodore Sider (2013). Replies to Dorr, Fine, and Hirsch. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (3):733-754.
Sarita Rosenstock, Thomas William Barrett & James Owen Weatherall (2015). On Einstein Algebras and Relativistic Spacetimes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 52:309-316.
Similar books and articles
Geoffrey Hellman (1998). Mathematical Constructivism in Spacetime. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (3):425-450.
Charles Parsons (2008). Mathematical Thought and its Objects. Cambridge University Press.
David Malament (2006). Classical Relativity Theory. In Jeremy N. Butterfield & John Earman (eds.), Philosophy of Physics. Elsevier
Stathis Psillos (2006). The Structure, the Whole Structure, and Nothing but the Structure? Philosophy of Science 73 (5):560-570.
Jessica Carter (2008). Structuralism as a Philosophy of Mathematical Practice. Synthese 163 (2):119 - 131.
Saunders Lane (1996). Structure in Mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica 4 (2):174-183.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads287 ( #7,415 of 1,796,214 )
Recent downloads (6 months)26 ( #29,539 of 1,796,214 )
How can I increase my downloads?