David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Dialectica 63 (4):591-601 (2009)
Dispositions can combine as vector sums. Recent authors on dispositions, such as George Molnar and Stephen Mumford, have responded to this feature of dispositions by introducing a distinction between effects and contributions to effects, and by identifying disposition-manifestations with the latter. But some have been sceptical of the reality or knowability of component vectors; Jennifer McKitrick (forthcoming) presses these concerns against the conception of manifestations as contributions to effects. In this paper, I aim to respond to McKitrick's arguments and to defend the metaphysical and epistemological propriety of component vectors. My strategy appeals to varying kinematic frames of reference. By transforming to the appropriate non-inertial frame, component acceleration vectors can be transformed into resultant acceleration vectors, and in such frames they become directly observable. Being a component acceleration vector and being a resultant acceleration vector are both frame-dependent properties of properties; they are not to be thought of as intrinsic or fundamental properties of an acceleration vector, but as artefacts of our frame-dependent notation for representing vector quantities. To conclude the paper, I defend the view proposed against two styles of objection. The first objection resurrects scepticism about component vectors as scepticism about fundamental component vectors. The second objection questions the need for reference frames in the explanation by invoking a 'counterfactual' theory of contributions.
|Keywords||disposition manifestation reference frame vector component|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Nancy Cartwright (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press.
George Molnar (2003). Powers: A Study in Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
Jerry A. Fodor & Brian P. McLaughlin (1990). Connectionism and the Problem of Systematicity: Why Smolensky's Solution Doesn't Work. Cognition 35 (2):183-205.
Stephen Mumford (2009). Passing Powers Around. The Monist 92 (1):94-111.
Jennifer McKitrick (2010). Manifestations as Effects. In Anna Marmodoro (ed.), The Metaphysics of Powers: Their Grounding and Their Manifestations. Routledge.
Citations of this work BETA
Jessica M. Wilson (2009). The Causal Argument Against Component Forces. Dialectica 63 (4):525-554.
Dwayne Moore (2012). A Non-Reductive Model of Component Forces and Resultant Force. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26 (4):359-380.
Similar books and articles
René van Den Brink & Peter Borm (2002). Digraph Competitions and Cooperative Games. Theory and Decision 53 (4):327-342.
Randolph Clarke (2010). Opposing Powers. Philosophical Studies 149 (2):153 - 160.
Wilfred Krause (1992). Inertial Reference Frame System. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 23 (1):61-83.
Eduardo Mizraji (1992). Lógicas vectoriales. Theoria 7 (1/2/3):123-140.
Douglas M. Snyder (1994). On the Arbitrary Choice Regarding Which Inertial Reference Frame is "Stationary" and Which is "Moving" in the Special Theory of Relativity. Philosophical Explorations.
Stephen Mumford & Rani Lill Anjum (2010). A Powerful Theory of Causation. In Anna Marmodoro (ed.), The Metaphysics of Powers: Their Grounding and Their Manifestations. Routledge. pp. 143--159.
Michael Dickson (2004). Quantum Reference Frames in the Context of EPR. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):655-668.
Added to index2010-03-03
Total downloads80 ( #60,647 of 1,924,998 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #57,804 of 1,924,998 )
How can I increase my downloads?