Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:45:59.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invariance, Interpretation, and Motivation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Thomas Møller-Nielsen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I assess the Invariance Principle, which states that only quantities that are invariant under the symmetries of our theories are physically real. I argue, contrary to current orthodoxy, that the variance of a quantity under a theory’s symmetries is not a sufficient basis for interpreting that theory as being uncommitted to the reality of that quantity. Rather, I argue, the variance of a quantity under symmetries only ever serves as a motivation to refrain from any commitment to the quantity in question.

Type
Physical Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 5 , December 2017 , pp. 1253 - 1264
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

For extremely helpful comments and discussion, I would like to thank David Baker, Neil Dewar, James Ladyman, Niels Martens, Tushar Menon, Oliver Pooley, James Read, Simon Saunders, Alex Skinner, Teru Thomas, David Wallace, and audiences in London, Cardiff, and Atlanta.

References

Dasgupta, S. 2016. “Symmetry as an Epistemic Notion (Twice Over).” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67 (3): 837–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewar, N. 2015. “Symmetries and the Philosophy of Language.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Science 52:317–27.Google Scholar
Dirac, P. A. M. 1958. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. 1989. World-Enough and Space-Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greaves, H., and Wallace, D. 2014. “Empirical Consequences of Symmetries.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (1): 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, R. 2007. Gauging What’s Real. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, E. 2014. “Newtonian Spacetime Structure in Light of the Equivalence Principle.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (4): 863–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, J. 2007. “Scientific Structuralism: On the Identity and Diversity of Objects in a Structure.” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 81 (1): 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, T. 1993. “Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Spacetime Is Probably a Substance.” Philosophy of Science 68 (2): 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. 2001. Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
O’Leary-Hawthorne, J., and Cortens, A. 1995. “Towards Ontological Nihilism.” Philosophical Studies 79 (2): 143–65.Google Scholar
Pooley, O. 2013. “Substantivalist and Relationalist Approaches to Spacetime.” In Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, ed. Batterman, R. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Batterman, R. Forthcoming. The Reality of Spacetime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, S. 2003. “Physics and Leibniz’s Principles.” In Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections, ed. Brading, K. and Castellani, E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Castellani, E. 2007. “Mirroring as an A Priori Symmetry.” Philosophy of Science 74 (4): 452–80.Google Scholar
Weatherall, J. 2016. “Understanding Gauge.” Philosophy of Science 85 (5): 1039–49.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. 1952. Symmetry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar