Synthese 103 (3):355 - 387 (1995)
In his recent article On Relativity Theory and Openness of the Future (1991), Howard Stein proves not only that one can define an objective becoming relation in Minkowski spacetime, but that there is only one possible definition available if one accepts certain natural assumptions about what it is for becoming to occur and for it to be objective. Stein uses the definition supplied by his proof to refute an argument due to Rietdijk (1966, 1976), Putnam (1967) and Maxwell (1985, 1988) that Minkowski spacetime leaves no room for objective becoming whatsoever. However, Stein's proof does not seem to go far enough. By considering only what events have become from the standpoint of any given event, Stein's uniqueness proof fails from the outset to allow for a more general kind of becoming whereby it is understood to occur from the standpoint of events on the particular worldlines followed by observers. This suggests that there may, after all, be more than one way to define objective becoming in Minkowski spacetime once each observer's worldline is allowed to figure in the definition. This suspicion is further aroused by two recent proposals for objective, worldline-dependent becoming due to Peacock (1992) and Muller (1992) who advocate ways of defining becoming that are not equivalent to the definition Stein's uniqueness proof delivers. Nevertheless, we show that Stein's uniqueness proofcan be extended in a natural way to cover this more general kind of becoming, provided one does not enrich standard Minkowski spacetime by privileging certain sets of worldlines over others in an unwarranted manner. Thus we aim to reinforce Stein's point that standard Minkowski spacetime does make room for objective becoming, but in essentially only one way, despite arguments and proposals to the contrary.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Computability and Logic.George Boolos, John Burgess, Richard P. & C. Jeffrey - 2007 - Cambridge University Press.
On Relativity Theory and Openness of the Future.Howard Stein - 1991 - Philosophy of Science 58 (2):147-167.
Are Probabilism and Special Relativity Incompatible?Nicholas Maxwell - 1985 - Philosophy of Science 52 (1):23-43.
Citations of this work BETA
Reassessing the Prospects for a Growing Block Model of the Universe.John Earman - 2008 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (2):135 – 164.
On Becoming, Cosmic Time and Rotating Universes.Mauro Dorato - 2002 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 50:253-.
How Relativity Contradicts Presentism.Simon Saunders - 2002 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 50:277-.
Special Relativity and the Future: A Defense of the Point Present.James Harrington - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 39 (1):82-101.
Similar books and articles
Is Structural Spacetime Realism Relationism in Disguise? The Supererogatory Nature of the Substantivalism/Relationism Debate.Mauro Dorato - unknown
On Becoming, Relativity, and Nonseparability.Mauro Dorato - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (4):585-604.
There's No Time Like the Present (in Minkowski Spacetime).Steven F. Savitt - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (3):574.
Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time.Vesselin Petkov (ed.) - 2010 - Springer.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads123 ( #38,092 of 2,153,858 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #28,154 of 2,153,858 )
How can I increase my downloads?