Abstract
Norton’s very simple case of indeterminism in classical mechanics has given rise to a literature critical of his result. I am interested here in posing a new objection different from the ones made to date. The first section of the paper expounds the essence of Norton’s model and my criticism of it. I then propose a specific modification in the absence of gravitational interaction. The final section takes into consideration a surprising consequence for classical mechanics from the new model introduced here.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agarwal R. P., Lakshmikantham V. (1993) Uniqueness and nonuniqueness criteria for ordinary differential equations. World Scientific, Singapore
Courant R., Robbins H. (1996) What is mathematics?. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Earman J. (1986) A primer on determinism. D. Reidel, Dordrecht
Korolev A. V. (2007) Indeterminism, asymptotic reasoning and time irreversibility in classical physics. Philosophy of Science 74: 943–956
Lee, Ch. (2011). The staccato roller coaster: A simple physical model of the staccato run. Synthese doi:10.1007/s11229-011-0049-8.
Malament D. B. (2008) Norton’s Slippery Slope. Philosophy of Science 75: 799–816
Norton J.D. (2008) The dome: An unexpectedly simple failure of determinism. Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association. Philosophy of science 75: 786–798
Painlevé P. (1895) Lecons sur le Frottement. A. Hermann, París
Wilson M. (2009) Determinism and the Mystery of the Missing Physics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60: 173–193
Xuan Anh L. (2003) Dynamics of mechanical systems with coulomb friction. Springer, Berlin
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Laraudogoitia, J.P. On Norton’s dome. Synthese 190, 2925–2941 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0105-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0105-z