Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Counterlegals and the ‘Makes No Difference’ Argument

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In his 2003 paper, “Does the Existence of Mathematical Objects Make a Difference?”, Alan Baker criticizes what he terms the ‘Makes No Difference’ (MND) argument by arguing that it does not succeed in undermining platonism. In this paper, I raise two objections. The first objection is that Baker is wrong in claiming that the premise of the MND argument lacks a truth-value. The second objection is that the theory of counterlegals which he appeals to in his argument is incompatible with actual scientific practice. I conclude that we ought not to accept Baker’s claim.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Baker (2003).

  2. Op. cit., p. 247.

  3. His reason is that “trivially, things which do not exist can make no actual difference”. Op. cit, p. 255.

  4. Kvart (1986, pp. 251–253).

  5. Op. cit., p. 252.

  6. Baker, op. cit., p. 261.

  7. Kvart says they are of a standard sort, that is, not unique to the counterfactual construction (1986, p. 252).

  8. Kvart, op. cit., p. 253.

  9. Ibid.

  10. Baker, op. cit., p. 262.

  11. Ibid.

  12. These physicists are interested in the so-called ‘anthropic principle.’ With respect to this, recently much research has been done on the origin of our universe, especially focused on the cosmological constant by theoretical physicists. See Agrawal et al. (1998), Banks et al. (2004), Hellerman and Walcher (2005), and Weinberg (1987). Some astrophysicists attempt to explain observations by appealing to the anthropic principle.

  13. This is taken as showing that the fundamental constants involved in the laws of nature are ‘finely tuned’ for life. Some philosophers claim that this provides evidence for the existence of God.

  14. Barrow and Tipler (1986, p. 327).

  15. Oberhummer et al. (2000, p. 90), recited from Collins (2003, p. 185).

  16. For example, the first quotation is equivalent to ‘If the strength of the [strong] nuclear force (αs ≤ 0.1) were decreased by 50%, stability of all the elements essential to living organisms and biological systems would be adversely affected.’

  17. Manson (2003, p. 13).

  18. Rees (2000, p. 2).

  19. Op. cit., p. 4.

  20. See footnote 7 above.

  21. Agrawal et al., op. cit., p. 1823.

  22. Hellerman and Walcher, op. cit., pp. 123520–123522.

  23. Weinberg, op. cit., p. 2607.

  24. Rees, op. cit., p. 34.

  25. Collins, op. cit., p. 192.

References

  • Agrawal, V., Barr, S. M., Donoghue, J. F., & Seckel, D. (1998). Anthropic considerations in multiple-domain theories and the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking. Physical Review Letters, 80, 1822–1825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, A. (2003). Does the existence of mathematical objects make a difference? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 81, 246–264. doi:10.1080/713659635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, T., Dine, M., & Gorbatov, E. (2004). Is there a string theory landscape?, Journal of High Energy Physics 0408, 058(33).

  • Barrow, J., & Tipler, F. (1986). The anthropic cosmological principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (2003). Evidence for fine-tuning. In N. A. Manson (Ed.), God and design (pp. 178–199). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. (2003). The appearance of design in physics and cosmology. In N. A. Manson (Ed.), God and design (pp. 147–154). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellerman, S., & Walcher, J. (2005). Dark matter and the anthropic principle. Physical Review D 72, 12350(5).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvart, I. (1986). A theory of counterfactuals. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manson, N. A. (2003). Introduction. In Neil. A. Manson (Ed.), God and design (pp. 1–23). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhummer, H., Csótó, A., & Schlattl, H. (2000). Fine-tuning of carbon based life in the universe by triple-alpha process in red giants. Science, 289, 88–90. doi:10.1126/science.289.5476.88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, M. (2000). Just six numbers. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, S. (1987). Anthropic bound on the cosmological constant. Physical Review Letters, 59, 2607–2610. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Alan Baker and Bradley Monton for helpful comments and discussions. I also thank my colleague, Sin Kyu Kang, a theoretical physicist, for helpful discussion and references to the literature in the current theoretical physics.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Liberal Arts, Seoul National University of Technology, Seoul, South Korea

    Seahwa Kim

  2. Scranton College, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea

    Seahwa Kim

Authors
  1. Seahwa Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seahwa Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, S. Counterlegals and the ‘Makes No Difference’ Argument. Erkenn 70, 419–426 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-008-9151-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-008-9151-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation