Carl Hoefer
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona
The traditional absolutist-relationist debate is still clearly formulable in the context of General Relativity Theory (GTR), despite the important differences between Einstein's theory and the earlier context of Newtonian physics. This paper answers recent arguments by Robert Rynasiewicz against the significance of the debate in the GTR context. In his (1996) (‘Absolute vs. Relational Spacetime: An Outmoded Debate?’), Rynasiewicz argues that already in the late nineteenth century, and even more so in the context of General Relativity theory, the terms of the original Descartes–Newton–Leibniz dispute about space are not to be found. Nineteenth-century ether theories of electromagnetism, and the metric field of GTR, he claims, do not lend themselves to being interpreted clearly as either absolute space à la Newton, or relational structures à la either Descartes or Leibniz. I argue that, while in some imaginable theories Rynasiewicz's claim that the classical debate dissolves would be correct, in fact in the most important historical theories he discusses, this is not the case. In particular, I argue that in both Lorentz's ether theory and General relativity theory, there is a clear and compelling way to establish connections to the classical absolutist-relationist disputes, and that in both these theories it is the absolutist position that is prima facie victorious. To support my arguments and give a clear overview of the whole debate, I end by offering definitional sketches of relationism and absolutism (substantivalism) about spacetime in the context of contemporary physics. The sketches show the clear connections between these views today and their ancestors in Newton and Leibniz. But at the same time, they indicate how both views are not just claims about existing physical theories, but rather also bets about how future physics will clarify the ontological picture.
Keywords Spacetime   Physics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/bjps/49.3.451
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,775
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Metaphysics of Space‐Time Substantivalism.Carl Hoefer - 1996 - Journal of Philosophy 93 (1):5-27.
Einstein's Struggle for a Machian Gravitation Theory.Carl Hoefer - 1994 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (3):287-335.
The Shape of Space.Peter Smith - 1978 - Philosophical Quarterly 28 (111):167-169.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

On the Existence of Spacetime Structure.Erik Curiel - 2014 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axw014.
Relationalism Rehabilitated? I: Classical Mechanics.Oliver Pooley & Harvey R. Brown - 2002 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (2):183--204.
Handedness, Parity Violation, and the Reality of Space.Oliver Pooley - 2001 - In Katherine Brading & Elena Castellani (eds.), Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections. Cambridge University Press. pp. 250--280.

View all 19 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
148 ( #68,341 of 2,432,664 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #214,007 of 2,432,664 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes