Authors
Niels Linnemann
University of Geneva
Abstract
How does metaphysical necessity relate to the modal force often associated with natural laws? Fine argues that natural necessity can neither be obtained from metaphysical necessity via forms of restriction nor of relativization — and therefore pleads for modal pluralism concerning natural and metaphysical necessity. Wolff, 898–906, 2013) aims at providing illustrative examples in support of applying Fine’s view to the laws of nature with specific recourse to the laws of physics: On the one hand, Wolff takes it that equations of motion can count as examples of physical laws that are only naturally but not metaphysically necessary. On the other hand, Wolff argues that a certain conservation law obtainable via Noether’s second theorem is an instance of a metaphysically necessary physical law. I show how Wolff’s example for a putatively metaphysically necessary conservation law fails but argue that so-called topological currents can nevertheless count as metaphysically necessary conservation laws carrying physical content. I conclude with a remark on employing physics to answer questions in metaphysics.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2020
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s13194-020-00281-1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,268
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Scientific Essentialism.Brian Ellis - 2001 - Cambridge University Press.
Essence and Modality.Kit Fine - 1994 - Philosophical Perspectives 8:1-16.
Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized.James Ladyman & Don Ross - 2007 - In James Ladyman, Don Ross, David Spurrett & John Collier (eds.), Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford University Press.
What is a Law of Nature?D. M. Armstrong - 1983 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Are Conservation Laws Metaphysically Necessary?Johanna Wolff - 2013 - Philosophy of Science 80 (5):898-906.
The Modal Status of Laws: In Defence of a Hybrid View.Tuomas E. Tahko - 2015 - Philosophical Quarterly 65 (260):509-528.
Laws and Meta-Laws of Nature: Conservation Laws and Symmetries.Marc Lange - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38 (3):457-481.
Some Laws of Nature Are Metaphysically Contingent.John T. Roberts - 2010 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (3):445-457.
Counterfactuals and Modal Epistemology.Tuomas Tahko - 2012 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 86 (1):93–115.
Lockean Essentialism and the Possibility of Miracles.Nathan Rockwood - 2018 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 56 (2):293-310.
The Metaphysical Necessity of Natural Laws.Quentin Smith - 1996 - Proceedings of the Heraclitean Society 18:104-23.
Explaining the Modal Force of Natural Laws.Andreas Bartels - 2018 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (1):6.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-03-07

Total views
30 ( #321,483 of 2,325,396 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
30 ( #22,024 of 2,325,396 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes