This paper has two goals. (i) I explore the limits of the mathematical theory of spacetime (more generally, differential geometry) as an analytical tool for interpreting early modern thought. While it dramatically clarifies some issues, it can also lead to misunderstandings of some figures, and is a very poor tool indeed for others - Leibniz in particular. (ii) I will show how to blunt a very influential argument against a relational conception of spacetime - the view that the properties and relations of bodies exhaust the spatiotemporal.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Fate of Presentism in Modern Physics.Christian Wuthrich - forthcoming - In Roberto Ciuni, Kristie Miller & Giuliano Torrengo (eds.), New Papers on the Present--Focus on Presentism. Philosophia Verlag.
The Hole Argument.John Norton - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:56 - 64.
Galileo's Ship and Spacetime Symmetry.Tim Budden - 1997 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (4):483-516.
What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Hole Story.John Earman & John Norton - 1987 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515-525.
Modern Essentialism and the Problem of Individuation of Spacetime Points.Andreas Bartels - 1996 - Erkenntnis 45 (1):25--43.
Can the Bundle Theory Save Substantivalism From the Hole Argument?Glenn Parsons & Patrick McGivern - 2001 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S358-.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads39 ( #126,743 of 2,146,801 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #386,101 of 2,146,801 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.