British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (2):235-255 (2015)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
When do objects at different times compose a further object? This is the question of diachronic composition. The universalist answers, ‘under any conditions whatsoever’. Others argue for restrictions on diachronic composition: composition occurs only when certain conditions are met. Recently, some philosophers have argued that restrictions on diachronic compositions are motivated by our best physical theories. In Persistence and Spacetime and elsewhere, Yuri Balashov argues that diachronic compositions are restricted in terms of causal connections between object stages. In a recent article, Nikk Effingham argues that the standard objections to views that endorse restrictions on composition do not apply to a view that restricts composition according to compliance with the laws of nature. On the face of it, such restrictions on diachronic composition preserve our common-sense ontology while eliminating from it scientifically revisionary objects that travel faster than the speed of light. I argue that these attempts to restrict diachronic composition by appealing to either causal or nomological constraints face insurmountable difficulties within the context of special relativity. I discuss how the universalist should best respond to Hudson’s argument for superluminal objects, and in doing so, I present and defend a new sufficient condition for motion that does not entail that such objects are in superluminal motion. 1 Introduction2 Diachronic Composition3 Diachronic Composition and Superluminal Objects4 Restricting Diachronic Composition5 Causal and Nomological Restrictions on Composition in a Relativistic Context6 Superluminal Objects and Motion7 Conclusion
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Reprint years | 2015 |
DOI | 10.1093/bjps/axt023 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
View all 29 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Restricted Diachronic Composition, Immanent Causality, and Objecthood: A Reply to Hudson.Yuri Balashov - 2003 - Philosophical Papers 32 (1):23-30.
Are Probabilism and Special Relativity Compatible?Nicholas Maxwell - 1988 - Philosophy of Science 55 (4):640-645.
A Logic Road From Special Relativity to General Relativity.Hajnal Andréka, Judit X. Madarász, István Németi & Gergely Székely - 2012 - Synthese 186 (3):633 - 649.
Unrestricted Composition as Identity.Einar Duenger Bohn - 2014 - In Donald Baxter & Aaron Cotnoir (eds.), Composition as Identity. Oxford University Press. pp. 143-65.
On Carmeli's Exotic Use of the Lorentz Transformation and on the Velocity Composition Approach to Special Relativity.O. Costa de Beauregard - 1986 - Foundations of Physics 16 (11):1153-1157.
On the Foundation of the Principle of Relativity.Øyvind Grøn & Kjell Vøyenli - 1999 - Foundations of Physics 29 (11):1695-1733.
Special Relativity Cannot Be Derived From Galilean Mechanics Alone.Alon Drory - 2013 - Foundations of Physics 43 (5):665-684.
The Relativistic Velocity Composition Paradox and the Thomas Rotation.Abraham A. Ungar - 1989 - Foundations of Physics 19 (11):1385-1396.
Time in Classical and Relativistic Physics.Gordon Belot - 2013 - In Adrian Bardon & Heather Dyke (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Time. Blackwell. pp. 185-200.
Relativity, God, and Time.Thomas Greenlee - 2010 - In Science and Religion in Dialogue. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 85--92.
Spatial Directions, Anisotropy and Special Relativity.Marco Mamone Capria - 2011 - Foundations of Physics 41 (8):1375-1397.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2013-09-19
Total views
350 ( #28,877 of 2,499,685 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #102,071 of 2,499,685 )
2013-09-19
Total views
350 ( #28,877 of 2,499,685 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #102,071 of 2,499,685 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads