Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T12:43:43.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks on Relational Theories of Motion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

John Earman
John Earman*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA15260, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article in this journal, Barbara Lariviere offers a very useful distinction between two ways of understanding the claims that Leibniz, or relational theorists in general, might wish to make about the nature of motion and the structure of space and time; viz.,

(L1) There is no real inertial structure to space-time.

and

(L2) There is a real inertial structure to space-time, but it is dynamical rather than absolute.

Citing the authority of Weyl, the author argues that L1 is untenable; indeed, the argument purports to show that if L1 were true, then there would be no coherent basis for a theory of motion, not even a relational theory. My main goal in this note is to point out why this argument is mistaken while at the same time sketching the real reason why the relational conception of motion is untenable. In addition I will offer a few remarks about the relevance of L2 to the absolute-relational controvery.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 83 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, H. G. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence (New York: Barnes and Noble 1984).Google Scholar
Barbour, J.B. ‘Relative-Distance Machian Theories,’ Nature 249 (1974), 328–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, J.B. and Bertotti, B. ‘Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework,’ Nuovo Cimento 38 (1977), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. and Norton, J. ‘What Price Space-Time Substantivalism? The Hole Story,’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (1987), 515–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. Varieties of Realism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1986).Google Scholar
Bariviere, B. ‘Leibnizian Relationism and the Problem of Inertia,’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17 (1987), 437–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leomker, J. ed., Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters 2nd ed. (Dordrecht: D. Reidel 1970).Google Scholar
Malament, D. ‘A Modest Remark about Reichenbach, Rotation, and General Relativity,’ Philosophy of Science 52 (1985), 615–20.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. The Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1966).Google Scholar