The strong arm of the law: a unified account of necessary and contingent laws of nature

被引:0
作者
Salim Hirèche
Niels Linnemann
Robert Michels
Lisa Vogt
机构
[1] Université de Genève,Département de philosophie
[2] Universität Bremen,Institut für Philosophie
[3] University of Western Ontario,Rotman Institute of Philosophy
[4] Università della Svizzera italiana,Facoltà di scienze della comunicazione
[5] Universität Bern,Institut für Philosophie
[6] Universitat de Barcelona,Facultat de Filosofia
[7] LOGOS,Institut für Philosophie
[8] Freie Universität Berlin,Theologische Fakultät
[9] Universität Luzern,undefined
来源
Synthese | 2021年 / 199卷
关键词
Laws of nature; Metaphysical necessity; Nomic necessity; Necessitarianism about laws of nature; Kinematical/dynamical distinction;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
A common feature of all standard theories of the laws of nature is that they are ‘absolutist’: They take laws to be either all metaphysically necessary or all contingent. Science, however, gives us reason to think that there are laws of both kinds, suggesting that standard theories should make way for ‘non-absolutist’ alternatives: theories which accommodate laws of both modal statuses. In this paper, we set out three explanatory challenges for any candidate non-absolutist theory, and discuss the prospects of the two extant candidates in light of these challenges. We then develop our own non-absolutist theory, the essentialist DTA account, which combines the nomic-necessitation or DTA account with an essentialist approach to metaphysical modality in order to meet the three explanatory challenges. Finally, we argue that the distinction between kinematical and dynamical laws found in physical theories supports both non-absolutism in general and our proposed essentialist DTA view in particular.
引用
收藏
页码:10211 / 10252
页数:41
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Anderson E(2012)Problem of time in quantum gravity Annalen der Physik 524 757-786
  • [2] Armstrong DM(1993)The identification problem and the inference problem Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 421-422
  • [3] Barker S(2012)The ultimate argument against dispositional monist accounts of laws Analysis 72 714-722
  • [4] Smart B(2010)Ontic vagueness: A guide for the perplexed Noûs 44 601-627
  • [5] Barnes E(1996)Modern essentialism and the problem of individuation of spacetime points Erkenntnis 45 25-43
  • [6] Bartels A(2019)Explaining the modal force of natural laws European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 6-55
  • [7] Bartels A(2005)The ultimate argument against armstrongs contingent necessitation view of laws Analysis 65 147-767
  • [8] Bird A(2006)Generic essence, objectual essence, and modality Noûs 40 753-653
  • [9] Correia F(2012)On the reduction of necessity to essence Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 639-321
  • [10] Correia F(2014)Classical mechanics is Lagrangian; it is not Hamiltonian The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 269-268