Philosophy of Science 80 (5):898-906 (2013)

Johanna Wolff
Stanford University
Are laws of nature necessary, and if so, are all laws of nature necessary in the same way? This question has played an important role in recent discussion of laws of nature. I argue that not all laws of nature are necessary in the same way: conservation laws are perhaps to be regarded as metaphysically necessary. This sheds light on both the modal character of conservation laws and the relationship between different varieties of necessity
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2013
DOI 10.1086/673715
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,242
External links

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

Essence and Modality.Kit Fine - 1994 - Philosophical Perspectives 8 (Logic and Language):1-16.
Which Symmetry? Noether, Weyl, and Conservation of Electric Charge.Katherine A. Brading - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33 (1):3-22.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Constraints, Causes and Necessity: Where Do Symmetries Fit?Margaret Morrison - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 99 (3):720-725.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
146 ( #71,573 of 2,444,759 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #88,142 of 2,444,759 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes