Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 5 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absoluteness | Absolute: something that is not dependent on conditions. Question is there absolute rest, absolute speed? - Antonym to relative. |
||
| Absoluteness | Field | III 48 Absolute Point of Rest/Newton/Field: Newton considers absolute rest possible and necessary to define absolute acceleration (bucket experiment). Absolute Acceleration/Newton: uses the laws of mechanics for explanation - acceleration can only be explained by absolute speed. For this we need an absolute point of rest. FieldVs: that does not work, because the theory itself cannot pick out a reference system. >Reference systems. III 49 MachVsNewton: theory change, does not need a resting point. FieldVsMach/FieldVsTheory Change: better: define acceleration without numerical speed and resting point. FieldVsTensors: they are arbitrary. Solution/Field: simultaneity. Point: sameness of place over time is absolute rest. Vs: that does not work within Newton's theory! Solution: concept of space without structure (intrinsic). Solution: affine geometry - (this also for Newton). IV 419 Relativism/Absolute/Field: statements about justification relative to a system are absolutely true or false. |
Field I H. Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989 Field II H. Field Truth and the Absence of Fact Oxford New York 2001 Field III H. Field Science without numbers Princeton New Jersey 1980 Field IV Hartry Field "Realism and Relativism", The Journal of Philosophy, 76 (1982), pp. 553-67 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 |
| Four-Dimensionalism | Field | III 36 Space/quantification/four-dimensionalism/time slices/Field: we can quantify over points or regions, without obligation to absolute rest: Solution: We consider a statement about the space as an abbreviation for a statement about each time slice. Time slice/Field: is generated by the relation of simultaneity. - Example: the sentence that the space is Euclidean, is a sentence about the fact that each time slice of space-time is Euclidean. Punch line: then the objects in the range of quantifiers are really space-time points and no longer mere space points. >Scope, >Domains, >Spacetime, >Spacetime points, >Quantifiers, >Quantification, >Ontology, >Mathematical entities. |
Field I H. Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989 Field II H. Field Truth and the Absence of Fact Oxford New York 2001 Field III H. Field Science without numbers Princeton New Jersey 1980 Field IV Hartry Field "Realism and Relativism", The Journal of Philosophy, 76 (1982), pp. 553-67 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 |
| Motion | Feynman | I 160 Movement/Feynman: the laws of mechanics for each particle can be summarized in one sentence of three equations: m(d²x/dt) = Fx, m(d²y/dt²) = Fy, m(d²z/dt²) = Fz. (11.1) (s) I.e. the forces in the three directions of the dimensions.) This means that there is a possibility of measuring x, y, z along three mutually perpendicular axes and the forces along these directions, so that these laws apply. Question: where do we put the starting point, from which the measurements must all be conducted? Perhaps the center of the universe: Feynman: the symmetries show us that we will not find this point. It is not designated! >Absoluteness/Berkeley, >Absoluteness/Field, >Absoluteness/Fraassen, >Absoluteness/Lewis, >Absoluteness/Putnam. >Absolute rest point, >Change. |
Feynman I Richard Feynman The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Vol. I, Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat, California Institute of Technology 1963 German Edition: Vorlesungen über Physik I München 2001 Feynman II R. Feynman The Character of Physical Law, Cambridge, MA/London 1967 German Edition: Vom Wesen physikalischer Gesetze München 1993 |
| Space | Field | III 35 Empty Space/Field: would be one without space-time points: senseless! - ((s) only for Platonism). >Platonism, >Spacetime, >Spacetime points. III 35 Space/time/Field: quantification over space-time points is something other than mere quantification over space points when a space point should be something that exists in time. Because that leads to the wrong question: whether a space point is identical to the same point in time - which in turn leads to the wrong question, if there was absolute rest. >Absolute rest, >Absoluteness, >Time. III 36 Regions/points/Field: solution for the nominalist: individual calculus/Goodman: Regions as sums of points. Then there are no empty areas! Regions then need not be contiguous, or can be measured. >Relationism, >Substantivalism. |
Field I H. Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989 Field II H. Field Truth and the Absence of Fact Oxford New York 2001 Field III H. Field Science without numbers Princeton New Jersey 1980 Field IV Hartry Field "Realism and Relativism", The Journal of Philosophy, 76 (1982), pp. 553-67 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mach, E. | Field Vs Mach, E. | III 48 Newtonian Spacetime/Field: here the lack of a full Euclidean structure shows in two ways: 1) you cannot objectively compare spatial distance with time distance. And that although such a comparison could be arbitrarily defined: E.g. by saying that the spatial distance between two points should be equal to a temporal distance if the temporal distance is the same as for a certain uniform movement in the Bureau of Standards. ((s) Third aspect: to set speed in relation to temporal and spatial distance). 2) (In order to explain this, we need to come to the subject of the absolute rest point (absolute rest): In the Newtonian system, this only makes sense in relation to an arbitrarily chosen coordinate system. Absolute Rest/Rest Point/Newton/Field: He himself considered them as possible in his system. And also as necessary in order to define absolute acceleration. He did that in his famous bucket experiment. Absolute Acceleration/Newton: ....Thesis: absolute acceleration is needed to explain the laws of mechanics. Absolute acceleration, in turn, can only be explained by absolute speed, and if that is supposed to make sense, we need an absolute rest point (absolute speed = 0). FieldVsNewton: ...that does not work at all, because the theory itself cannot single out a reference system (rest frame) for the determination of absolute speed. MachVsNewton/Solution: a change of physical theory: to one that does not use absolute acceleration. III 49 FieldVsMach: it would be better to avoid changing theory. That means we treat absolute acceleration without assuming that it is defined by numerical speed. Absolute Acceleration/FieldVsNewton: we can have it without an absolute rest point. PlatonismVsNewton/Absolute Acceleration/Earman/Friedman/Field: Also a Platonic construction with 4-dimensional tensors is known and popular among science philosophers of today. FieldVsTensors: these are again arbitrary. (see below). |
Field I H. Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989 Field II H. Field Truth and the Absence of Fact Oxford New York 2001 Field III H. Field Science without numbers Princeton New Jersey 1980 Field IV Hartry Field "Realism and Relativism", The Journal of Philosophy, 76 (1982), pp. 553-67 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 |
| Newton, I. | Positivism Vs Newton, I. | Field III 36 Logical PositivismVsAbsolute Rest/Absolute Rest Point/Absoluteness/Field: his criticism was right. |
|
| Sklar, L. | Field Vs Sklar, L. | I 201 Absolute Acceleration/Substantialism/S/Larry Sklar: (Sklar, 1974): thinks the problem arises (for relationism), because the S understands absolute acceleration as acceleration relative to an entity, namely an inertial frame or ITAR. Relationism/Sklar: cannot do likewise. But: possible solution/Sklar: R must deny that the predicate "is absolutely accelerated" is a relational expression! The term "A is accelerated" is incomplete. To complete it, we must answer the question: "A is accelerated relative to what?" Important argument: but the term "A is absolutely accelerated" is precisely a complete expression! As E.g. "A is red" and not incomplete like "A is north of". I 202 Absolute Acceleration/Sklar: is no relation to anything! Not even to the "center of mass of the Universe"! (>Absoluteness). And it is also no relation that an object has to substantivalistic (empty) RZ. Because these ultimate "reference objects" do not exist according to R. FieldVsSklar: does it work? The answer is difficult and ambiguous. 1) You can understand his words in a way that we allow de R the use of the 1-digit predicate "is absolutely accelerated". And accordingly, "is absolutely unaccelerated" (in absolute rest). This is a non-relational predicate in which "x is absolutely unaccelerated" is not defined in terms of a relation between x and something else (neither matter nor empty RZ) Rather it would be a primitive term or defined in terms which are themselves not relational. Then the R would be permitted to use such predicates. FieldVsSklar: unfortunately, that does not change the problem of acceleration, because the problem arises, because there are so few things in the ontology of the relationalist that are absolutely unaccelerated. The primitive predicate of acceleratedness only allows sorting out those few trajectories that are unaccelerated. Problem: You cannot define the other predicates with that, such as E.g. "has twice the acceleration as". If we had a sufficient number of unaccelerated trajectories, we could use them to define numerical acceleration (more precisely, the different invariant acceleration predicates). We could simply mimic the substantivalistic definitions by using unaccelerated trajectories instead of ITAR. 2) Sklar/Field: you can read it differently: that you do not only define one single non-relational predicate of unacceleratedness, but infinitely many, perhaps a "has the acceleration (r1, r2, r3) for each triplet of definable reals R1, R2, R3. Or even a more complex family of predicates, which would have the advantage of being independent from co-ordinates and scales. I 203 Vs: infinite ideology (predicates) makes a theory impossible. 3) Skalar/Field: he could be understood as follows: we could allow the R to introduce a primitive numerical (or "vector valued") acceleration functor. (But neither he is independent from the time scale). This is possible if one accepts the Heavy Duty Platonism (HDP). R/Field: but more attractive when it comes to the rejection of the HDP. |
Hartry Field I Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford 1989 II Field Truth and the absence of facts Wahrheit ohne Tatsachen Oxford, New York 2001 III Field Science without numbers Princeton University Press 1980 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of an allied field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vs Absolutism. | Leibniz, G.W. | Staln I 226 Relationalism / space / Leibniz / Stalnaker: Thesis: per conceptual independence of space and time. Stalnaker: I think it is coherent. Thesis: there is no absolute localization (position, no absolute rest point). That the assignment of number triples to space points is arbitrary. Relationism Vs absolutism / Stalnaker: the bone of contention is whether the identification of space points in time is conventional. Relationism: there is no absolute motion. Only change in the time the relative positions of things. Motion / relationism / Stalnaker: allegations of movements are completely useful here. But they are always understood in terms of a frame (frame of reference). |
|
| |||