Absolute vs. Relational Theories of Space and Time: A Review of John Earman’s World Enough and Space-Time

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55 (3):675-688 (1995)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

For much of this century it was widely assumed in philosophical circles that the relational doctrine of space, time, and motion had finally been established beyond the point of reasonable controversy. In large part this was due to a widespread perception that the theory of relativity is itself a relational theory. Indeed, some of Einstein’s own pronouncements foster this impression. For example, in his definitive formulation of general relativity of 1916, he argued the need for a generalization of the principle of special relativity in order to eliminate the “factitious” causal role he saw inertial frames playing in classical mechanics and special relativity. ‘The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion’. Einstein claimed this requirement is fulfilled by satisfaction of the Principle of General Covariance—that the equations expressing the laws of nature remain valid under arbitrary coordinate substitutions. This, he says, ‘takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity.’

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-04-09

Downloads
194 (#208,270)

6 months
16 (#706,633)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert Rynasiewicz
Johns Hopkins University

Citations of this work

Relationalism rehabilitated? I: Classical mechanics.Oliver Pooley & Harvey R. Brown - 2002 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (2):183--204.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references