Element contents
Laws of Physics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2024
Summary
Despite its apparent complexity, our world seems to be governed by simple laws of physics. This volume provides a philosophical introduction to such laws. I explain how they are connected to some of the central issues in philosophy, such as ontology, possibility, explanation, induction, counterfactuals, time, determinism, and fundamentality. I suggest that laws are fundamental facts that govern the world by constraining its physical possibilities. I examine three hallmarks of laws-simplicity, exactness, and objectivity-and discuss whether and how they may be associated with laws of physics.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009026390Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 20 June 2024
References
Adlam, E. (2022a). Determinism beyond time evolution. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 12(4):73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adlam, E. (2022b). Laws of nature as constraints. Foundations of Physics, 52(1):28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnowitt, R., Deser, S., and Misner, C. W. (1962). The dynamics of general relativity. In Witten, L., editor, Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research, pages 227–264. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ashtekar, A. and Gupt, B. (2016a). Initial conditions for cosmological perturbations. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34(3):035004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashtekar, A. and Gupt, B. (2016b). Quantum gravity in the sky: Interplay between fundamental theory and observations. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34(1):014002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J. A. (1995). The distribution postulate in Bohm’s theory. Topoi, 14(1):45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J. A. and Chen, E. K. (2023). Algorithmic randomness and probabilistic laws. arXiv preprint:2303.01411.Google Scholar
Beebee, H. (2000). The non-governing conception of laws of nature. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 61:571–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S. (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Physics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhogal, H. (2017). Minimal anti-Humeanism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 95(3):447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhogal, H. and Perry, Z. (2017). What the Humean should say about entanglement. Noûs, 51(1):74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A. (2007). Nature’s Metaphysics: Laws and Properties. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Builes, D. (2022). The ineffability of induction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 104(1):129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, C. (2004). Measures, explanations and the past: Should “special” initial conditions be explained? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(2):195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. W. (2018). Becoming Humean. In Ott, W. and Patton, L., editors, Laws of Nature, pages 122–138. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (2010). From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. Penguin.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1994). Nature’s Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravartty, A. (2017). Scientific realism. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2017 edition.Google Scholar
Chen, E. K. (2021a). Quantum mechanics in a time-asymmetric universe: On the nature of the initial quantum state. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(4):1155–1183. doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, E. K. (2021b). The cosmic void. In Bernstein, S. and Goldschmidt, T., editors, Non-being: New Essays on the Metaphysics of Nonexistence, pages 115–138. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, E. K. (2022a). From time asymmetry to quantum entanglement: The Humean unification. Noûs, 56:227–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, E. K. (2022b). Fundamental nomic vagueness. The Philosophical Review, 131(1) 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, E. K. (2022c). Strong determinism. Philosophers’ Imprint, forthcoming, arXiv:2203.02886.Google Scholar
Chen, E. K. (2023a). The past hypothesis and the nature of physical laws. In Loewer, B., Winsberg, Eric and Weslake, B., editors, The Probability Map of the Universe: Essays on David Albert’s Time and Chance, pages 204–248. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, E. K. (2023d). The Wentaculus: Density matrix realism meets the arrow of time. In Bassi, A., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, Roderich and Zanghì, N., editors, Physics and the Nature of Reality: Essays in Memory of Detlef Dürr. Springer, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Chen, E. K. and Goldstein, S. (2022). Governing without a fundamental direction of time: Minimal primitivism about laws of nature. In Ben-Menahem, Y., editor, Rethinking the Concept of Law of Nature, pages 21–64. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, S. and Fara, M. (2021). Dispositions. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2021 edition.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. and Callender, C. (2009). A better best system account of lawhood. Philosophical Studies, 145(1):1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deckert, D.-A. (2010). Electrodynamic Absorber Theory: A Mathematical Study. PhD thesis, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.Google Scholar
Demarest, H. (2017). Powerful properties, powerless laws. In Jacobs, J. D., editor, Causal Powers, pages 38–53. Oxford University Press Oxford.Google Scholar
Dorst, C. (2019). Towards a best predictive system account of laws of nature. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(3):877–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, C. (2023). Productive laws in relativistic spacetimes. Philosophers’ Imprint (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N. (1992). Quantum equilibrium and the origin of absolute uncertainty. Journal of Statistical Physics, 67(5–6):843–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. and Roberts, J. T. (2005). Contact with the nomic: A challenge for deniers of Humean supervenience about laws of nature part II: The epistemological argument for Humean supervenience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 71(2):253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. (2004). Infinitesimal chances and the laws of nature. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82(1):67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, B. (2014). The Philosophy of Nature: A Guide to the New Essentialism. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, N. (2019). Laws and their instances. Philosophical Studies, 176(6):1535–1561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, N. (2023). Naturalism Beyond the Limits of Science: How Scientific Methodology Can and Should Shape Philosophical Theorizing. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esfeld, M. (2014). Quantum Humeanism, or: Physicalism without properties. The Philosophical Quarterly, 64(256):453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenton-Glynn, L. (2019). Imprecise chance and the best system analysis. Philosophers’ Imprint, 19(23):1–44.Google Scholar
Fernandes, A. (2023). The Temporal Asymmetry of Causation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, J. (2004). The Divine Lawmaker: Lectures on Induction, Laws of Nature, and the Existence of God. Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederich, S. and Evans, P. W. (2019). Retrocausality in quantum mechanics. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2019 edition.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. (2018). Collapse theories. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Fall 2018 edition.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D, 34(2):470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstein, S. (2001). Boltzmann’s approach to statistical mechanics. In Bricmont, J., Dürr, D., Galavotti, M. C., et al., editors, Chance in Physics, pages 39–54. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, S. (2012). Typicality and notions of probability in physics. In Ben-Menahem, Yemima and Hemmo, Meir, editors, Probability in physics, pages 59–71. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, S. (2017). Bohmian mechanics. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2017 edition.Google Scholar
Goldstein, S., Lebowitz, J. L., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N. (2020). Gibbs and Boltzmann entropy in classical and quantum mechanics. In Allori, V., editor, Statistical Mechanics and Scientific Explanation: Determinism, Indeterminism and Laws of Nature, pages 519–581. World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, N. (2004). Two concepts of causation. In Collins, J., Hall, N., and Paul, L., editors, Causation and Counterfactuals, pages 225–276. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, N. (2009). Humean reductionism about laws of nature. Manuscript. http://philpapers.org/rec/HALHRA.Google Scholar
Hall, N. (2015). Humean reductionism about laws of nature. In Loewer, Barry and Schaffer, Jonathan, editors, A companion to David Lewis, pages 262–277. John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartle, J. (1996). Scientific knowledge from the perspective of quantum cosmology. In John, L. Casti and Karlqvist, Anders, editors, Boundaries and Barriers: On the Limits to Scientific Knowledge. Addison-Wesley; arXiv:gr-qc/9601046.Google Scholar
Hartle, J. B. (1997). Quantum cosmology: Problems for the 21st century. In Kikkawa, K., Kunitomo, Hiroshi, and Ohtsubo, H., editors, Physics in the 21st century, pages 179–199. World Scientific; arXiv:gr-qc/9701022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartle, J. B. and Hawking, S. W. (1983). Wave function of the universe. Physical Review D, 28(12):2960–2975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, L. (2022). The problem of induction. In Zalta, E. N. and Nodelman, U., editors, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Winter 2022 edition.Google Scholar
Henderson, L. (2023). On the mutual exclusivity of competing hypotheses. In Schupbach, J. N. and Glass, D. H., editors, Conjunctive Explanations: The Nature, Epistemology, and Psychology of Explanatory Multiplicity, pages 170–194. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, M. T. (2018). Dynamic Humeanism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 69(4): 983–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, M. T. and Schaer, J. (2017). Derivative properties in fundamental laws. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68(2):411–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, M. T., Jaag, S., and Loew, C., editors (2023). Humean Laws for Humean Agents. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildebrand, T. and Metcalf, T. (2021). The nomological argument for the existence of God. Noûs 56(2):443–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, C. (2023). Causal Models. In Zalta, E. N. and Nodelman, U., editors, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2023 edition.Google Scholar
Hoefer, C. (2002). Freedom from the inside out. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 50:201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoefer, C. (2016). Causal determinism. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2016 edition.Google Scholar
Hyde, D. and Raffman, D. (2018). Sorites paradox. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2018 edition.Google Scholar
Ismael, J. T. (2009). Probability in deterministic physics. The Journal of Philosophy, 106(2):89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaag, S. and Loew, C. (2020). Making best systems best for us. Synthese, 197:2525–2550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefe, R. and Smith, P. (1996). Introduction. In Keefe, R. and Smith, P., editors, Vagueness: A Reader, pages 1–57. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kimpton-Nye, S. (2017). Humean laws in an unHumean world. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 3(2):129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraut, R. (2017). Plato. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Fall 2017 edition.Google Scholar
Kutach, D. N. (2002). The entropy theory of counterfactuals. Philosophy of Science, 69(1):82–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. (1999). Laws, counterfactuals, stability, and degrees of lawhood. Philosophy of Science, 66(2):243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. (2009). Laws and Lawmakers: Science, Metaphysics, and the Laws of Nature. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. (2013). Grounding, scientific explanation, and Humean laws. Philosophical Studies, 164(1):255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. (2016). Because without Cause: Non-casual Explanations in Science and Mathematics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarovici, D. (2018). Against fields. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 8(2):145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarovici, D. (2020). Typical Humean worlds have no laws. Manuscript. philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17469/.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13:455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In Jeffrey, R. C., editor, Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, volume 2, pages 263–293. University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61:343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. (2001). Determinism and chance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 32(4):609–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. (2007a). Counterfactuals and the second law. In Price, H. and Corry, R., editors, Causation, Physics, and the Constitution of Reality: Russell’s Republic Revisited, pages 293–326. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. (2007b). Laws and natural properties. Philosophical Topics, 35(1/2):313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. (2012). Two accounts of laws and time. Philosophical Studies, 160(1):115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. (2020a). The consequence argument meets the Mentaculus. In Loewer, B., Winsberg, E., Weslake, Brad, editor, Time’s Arrows and the Probability Structure of the world. Harvard University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Loewer, B. (2020b). The Mentaculus vision. In Allori, V., editor, Statistical Mechanics and Scientific Explanation: Determinism, Indeterminism and Laws of Nature, pages 3–29. World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. (2020c). The package deal account of laws and properties (pda). Synthese, 199(1–2):1065–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchak, J. B. (2009). Can we know the global structure of spacetime? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40(1):53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, T. (2019). Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory, volume 9. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McKenzie, K. (2022). Fundamentality and Grounding. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. (2014). Quantum entanglement, Bohmian mechanics, and Humean supervenience. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92(3):567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, R. (1974). Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Myrvold, W. (2017). Philosophical issues in quantum theory. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2017 edition.Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. (2019). The Hole Argument. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2019 edition.Google Scholar
Page, D. N. (2009). Symmetric-bounce quantum state of the universe. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2009(9):026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penrose, R. (1974). The role of aesthetics in pure and applied mathematical research. Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematics and Its Applications, 10:266–271.Google Scholar
Penrose, R. (1979). Singularities and time-asymmetry. In Hawking, S. and Israel, W., editors, General Relativity, pages 581–638. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1913). On the notion of cause. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 13:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, R. M. (1990). Concepts without boundaries. Inaugural Lecture Given at King’s College London on 6 November 1990.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2016). It is the business of laws to govern. dialectica, 70(4):577–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, R. (2018). Vagueness. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2018 edition.Google Scholar
Sutherland, R. I. (2008). Causally symmetric Bohm model. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39(4):782–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooley, M. (1977). The nature of laws. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7(4):667–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uzan, J.-P. (2011). Varying constants, gravitation and cosmology. Living Reviews in Relativity, 14(1):1–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vetter, B. (2015). Potentiality: From Dispositions to Modality. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, D. (2010). Gravity, entropy, and cosmology: In search of clarity. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 513–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, J. O. (2019a). Part 1: Theoretical equivalence in physics. Philosophy Compass, 14(5):e12592.Google Scholar
Weatherall, J. O. (2019b). Part 2: Theoretical equivalence in physics. Philosophy Compass, 14(5):e12591.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1992). Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature. Pantheon.Google Scholar
Wheeler, J. A. and Feynman, R. P. (1945). Interaction with the absorber as the mechanism of radiation. Reviews of Modern Physics, 17(2–3):157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, J. A. and Feynman, R. P. (1949). Classical electrodynamics in terms of direct interparticle action. Reviews of Modern Physics, 21(3):425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigner, E. (1985). Events, laws of nature, and invariance principles. In Zichichi, A., editor, How Far Are We from the Gauge Forces – Proceedings of the 21st Course of the International School of Subnuclear Physics, Aug 3–14, 1983, pages 699–708. Plenum.Google Scholar
Wigner, E. P. (1964). Symmetry and conservation laws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 51(5):956–965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, P. (2023). Philosophy of Particle Physics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J. and Ross, L. (2021). Scientific Explanation. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2021 edition.Google Scholar