Why manifold substantivalism is probably not a consequence of classical mechanics

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13 (1):17 – 34 (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper develops and defends three related forms of relationism about spacetime against attacks by contemporary substantivalists. It clarifies Newton's globes argument to show that it does not bear on relations that fail to determine geodesic motions, since the inertial effects on which Newton relies are not simply correlated with affine structure, but must be understood in dynamical terms. It develops remarks by Sklar and van Fraassen into relational versions of Newtonian mechanics, and argues that Earman does not show them to trivialize the debate.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
158 (#116,194)

6 months
4 (#698,851)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nick Huggett
University of Illinois, Chicago

Citations of this work

Geometry and motion.Gordon Belot - 2000 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (4):561--95.
Regularity Relationalism and the Constructivist Project.Syman Stevens - 2017 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axx037.
Reflections on parity nonconservation.Nick Huggett - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (2):219-241.
Sklar's Maneuver.Bradford Skow - 2007 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (4):777-786.

View all 15 citations / Add more citations