Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:24:28.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Norton's Slippery Slope

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

David B. Malament
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I identify several issues that arise in trying to decide whether Newtonian particle mechanics qualifies as a deterministic theory. I also give a minitutorial on the geometry and dynamical properties of Norton's dome surface. The goal is to better understand how his example works and also to better appreciate just how wonderfully strange it is.

Type
The Vagaries of Determinism and Indeterminism
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2008 , pp. 799 - 816
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

‡

I am grateful to Erik Curiel, John Earman, Stefan Hartmann, Peter Koellner, Pen Maddy, John Manchak, John Norton, and Mark Wilson for helpful comments.

References

Arnold, Vladimir (1992), Ordinary Differential Equations. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Diacu, Florin, and Holmes, Philip (1996), Celestial Encounters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Norton, John (2003), “Causation as Folk Science”, Causation as Folk Science 3 (4), http://www.philosophersimprint.org/003004/.Google Scholar
Norton, John (2008), “The Dome: An Unexpectedly Simple Failure of Determinism”, The Dome: An Unexpectedly Simple Failure of Determinism 75, in this issue.Google Scholar
Saari, Donald, and Xia, Jeff (1995), “Off to Infinity in Finite Time”, Off to Infinity in Finite Time 42:538–546.Google Scholar