The “Structure” of Physics

Journal of Philosophy 106 (2):57-88 (2009)
We are used to talking about the “structure” posited by a given theory of physics. We say that relativity is a theory about spacetime structure. Special relativity posits one spacetime structure; different models of general relativity posit different spacetime structures. We also talk of the “existence” of these structures. Special relativity says the world’s spacetime structure is Minkowskian: it posits that this spacetime structure exists. Understanding structure in this sense seems important for understanding what physics is telling us about the world. But it is not immediately obvious just what this structure is, or what we mean by the existence of one structure, rather than another. The idea of mathematical structure is relatively straightforward. There is geometric structure, topological structure, algebraic structure, and so forth. Mathematical structure tells us how abstract mathematical objects t together to form different types of mathematical spaces. Insofar as we understand mathematical objects, we can understand mathematical structure. Of course, what to say about the nature of mathematical objects isn’t easy. But there seems to be no further problem for understanding mathematical structure. Modern theories of physics are formulated in terms of these mathematical structures. In order to understand “structure” as used in physics, then, it seems we must simply look at the structure of the mathematics that is used to state the physics. But it is not that simple. Physics is supposed to be telling us about the nature of the world. If our physical theories are formulated in mathematical language, using mathematical objects, then this mathematics is somehow telling us about the physical make-up of the world. What is..
Keywords Analytic Philosophy  Contemporary Philosophy
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0022-362X
DOI 10.5840/jphil2009106213
 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: 30,248
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
What Scientific Theories Could Not Be.Hans Halvorson - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
Building the World From its Fundamental Constituents.L. A. Paul - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 158 (2):221-256.
Classical Mechanics Is Lagrangian; It Is Not Hamiltonian.Erik Curiel - 2014 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (2):269-321.
Glymour and Quine on Theoretical Equivalence.Thomas William Barrett & Hans Halvorson - 2016 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 45 (5):467-483.
On Einstein Algebras and Relativistic Spacetimes.Sarita Rosenstock, Thomas William Barrett & James Owen Weatherall - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 52:309-316.

View all 25 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Mathematical Constructivism in Spacetime.Geoffrey Hellman - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (3):425-450.
Classical Relativity Theory.David Malament - 2006 - In Jeremy N. Butterfield & John Earman (eds.), Philosophy of Physics. Elsevier.
Structure in Mathematics.Saunders Lane - 1996 - Philosophia Mathematica 4 (2):174-183.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
319 ( #9,709 of 2,192,159 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #19,022 of 2,192,159 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature