Are Conservation Laws Metaphysically Necessary?

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

Authors
Johanna Wolff
Stanford University
Abstract
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
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 40,000
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 8:1-16.
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

Explaining the Modal Force of Natural Laws.Andreas Bartels - 2019 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (1):6.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-01-12

Total views
130 ( #54,192 of 2,236,147 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #294,595 of 2,236,147 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature