No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On Quantitative Relationist Theories
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2022
Abstract
Mundy (1983) presented the formal apparatus of certain relationist theories of space and space-time taking quantitative relations as primitive. The present paper discusses the philosophical and physical interpretation of such theories, and replies to some objections to such theories and to relationism in general raised in Field (1985). Under an appropriate second-order naturalistic Platonist interpretation of the formalism, quantitative relationist theories are seen to be entirely comparable to spatialist ones in respect of the issues raised by Field. Moreover, it appears that even if accepted as sound, Field's general line of criticism would not diminish the significance of relationism for philosophy of science, since this derives primarily from its connection to physical rather than to mathematical or philosophical ontology.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association
References
Anderson, J. L. (1967), Principles of Relativity Physics. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barut, A. O. (1964), Electrodynamics and Classical Theory of Fields and Particles, Macmillan. Dover reprint, 1980.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, L. M. (1953), Distance Geometry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprinted by Chelsea, New York, 1970.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, L. M., and Menger, K. (1970), Studies in Geometry. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Busemann, H. (1967), “Timelike Spaces”, Dissertationes Mathematicae (formerly Rozprawy Matematyczne) 53: 1–50.Google Scholar
Busemann, H. (1970), Recent Synthetic Differential Geometry. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. (1984), “Relationism and Possible Worlds”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35: 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R. P. [1965] (1972), “The Development of the Space-Time View of Quantum Electrodynamics”, Nobel Prize lecture, in Nobel Lectures in Physics 1963–1970. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 155–178.Google Scholar
Feynman, R. P., and Hibbs, A. R. (1965), Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Field, H. (1980), Science Without Numbers. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Field, H. (1985), “Can We Dispense with Space-Time?”, in P. D. Asquith and P. Kitcher (eds.), PSA 1984, Vol. 2, East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 33–90.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1983), Foundations of Space-Time Theories. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. R. (1977), “Relationism and Relativity”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 28: 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1973), Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed., Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 12. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1977), “Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Space-Time”, in J. Earman, C. Glymour, and J. Stachel (eds.), Foundations of Space-Time Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 7. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 303–373.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. (1971), “The Relational Doctrines of Space and Time”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22: 97–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, P. (1978), “On the Existence of Time, Space and Space-Time”, Nous 12: 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyle, F., and Narlikar, J. V. (1974), Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Krantz, D.; Luce, R.; Suppes, P.; and Tversky, A. (1971), Foundations of Measurement, vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kerner, E. H. (ed.) (1972), The Theory of Action-at-a-Distance in Relativistic Particle Dynamics. New York: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
Lacey, H. M. (1970), “The Scientific Intelligibility of Absolute Space: A Study of Newtonian Argument”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21: 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llosa, J. (ed.) (1982), Relativistic Action at a Distance: Classical and Quantum Aspects, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 162. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Manders, K. (1982), “On the Space-Time Ontology of Physical Theories”, Philosophy of Science 49: 575–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundy, B. (1983), “Relational Theories of Euclidean Space and Minkowski Space-Time”, Philosophy of Science 50: 205—226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundy, B. (1986a), “Embedding and Uniqueness in Relational Theories of Space”, Synthese 67: 383–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundy, B. (1986b), “On the General Theory of Meaningful Representation”, Synthese 67: 391–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundy, B. (1987), “The Metaphysics of Quantity”, Philosophical Studies 51: 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundy, B. (1988), “Extensive Measurement and Ratio Functions”, Synthese 75: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raine, D. J., and Heller, M. (1981), The Science of Space-Time, Tucson: Pachart Publishing House.Google Scholar
Sciama, D. (1969), The Physical Foundations of General Relativity. New York: Double-day.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. [1974] (1976), Space, Time, and Space-Time, 2nd. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sudarshan, E. C. G. (1973), “Action-at-a-Distance”, in E. C. G. Sudarshan, and Y. Ne'eman (eds.), The Past Decade in Particle Theory. London: Gordon and Breach, pp. 519–560.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1973), “Some Open Problems in the Philosophy of Space and Time”, in P. Suppes (ed.), Space, Time, and Geometry. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
An addendum has been issued for this article:
- 4
- Cited by
Linked content
Please note an has been issued for this article.