The Dome: An Unexpectedly Simple Failure of Determinism

Philosophy of Science 75 (5):786-798 (2008)
Abstract
Newton’s equations of motion tell us that a mass at rest at the apex of a dome with the shape specified here can spontaneously move. It has been suggested that this indeterminism should be discounted since it draws on an incomplete rendering of Newtonian physics, or it is “unphysical,” or it employs illicit idealizations. I analyze and reject each of these reasons. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260; e‐mail: jdnorton@pitt.edu.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/594524
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,133
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Classical Mechanics Is Lagrangian; It Is Not Hamiltonian.Erik Curiel - 2014 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (2):269-321.
The Norton Dome and the Nineteenth Century Foundations of Determinism.Marij van Strien - 2014 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 45 (1):167-185.
What Is a Physically Reasonable Space-Time?John Manchak - 2011 - Philosophy of Science 78 (3):410-420.
The Bare Necessities.Shamik Dasgupta - 2011 - Philosophical Perspectives 25 (1):115-160.

View all 22 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
179 ( #26,152 of 2,191,816 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #144,668 of 2,191,816 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature