Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 3, pp 549–562

The staccato roller coaster: a simple physical model of the staccato run

Article

Abstract

I present a simple model of Grünbaum’s staccato run in classical mechanics, the staccato roller coaster. It consists of a bead sliding on a frictionless wire shaped like a roller coaster track with infinitely many hills of diminishing size, each of which is a one-dimensional variant of the so-called Norton dome. The staccato roller coaster proves beyond doubt the dynamical (and hence logical) possibility of supertasks in classical mechanics if the Norton dome is a proper system of classical mechanics with metaphysical import. If not, challenges raised against the metaphysical significance of the Norton dome are shown to be challenges against various arguments for the dynamical possibility of supertasks, and the staccato roller coaster clearly shows the importance of meeting these challenges. And the staccato roller coaster can provide, as well as interesting lessons, illuminating analyses of Burke’s (Mod Schoolman 78:1–8, 2000) attempt to refute the dynamical possibility of the staccato run and Pérez Laraudogoitia’s (Synthese 148:433–441, 2006) rebuttal of it.

Keywords

Supertask Staccato run Norton dome Infinity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Black, M. (1950–1951). Achilles and the tortoise. Analysis 11, 91–101. Reprinted in Salmon (1970).Google Scholar
  2. Burke M. (2000) The staccato run: A contemporary issue in the Zenonian tradition. The Modern Schoolman 78: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Earman J. (1971) Laplacian determinism, or it this any way to run a universe. Journal of Philosophy 68: 729–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grünbaum A. (1967) Modern science and Zeno’s paradoxes. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CTGoogle Scholar
  5. Grünbaum, A. (1970). Modern science and Zeno’s paradoxes of motion. In W. Salmon (Ed.), Zeno’s paradoxes (pp. 200–250). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  6. Korolev A. (2007a) Indeterminism, asymptotic reasoning, and time irreversibility in classical physics. Philosophy of Science 74: 943–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Korolev, A. (2007b). The Norton-type Lipschitz-indeterministic systems and elastic phenomena: Indeterminism as an artefact of infinite idealizations. PSA 2008 Contributed Papers. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/4314. Accessed 30 April 2011.
  8. Malament D. (2008) Norton’s slippery slope. Philosophy of Science 75: 799–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Norton, J. (2003). Causation as folk science. Philosopher’ s Imprint 3. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0003.004. Accessed 30 April 2011.
  10. Norton J. (2008) The dome: An unexpectedly simple failure of determinism. Philosophy of Science 75: 786–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pérez Laraudogoitia J. (1996) A beautiful supertask. Mind 105: 81–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pérez Laraudogoitia J. (2006) A look at the staccato run. Synthese 148: 433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Salmon W. (1970) Zeno’s paradoxes. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, INGoogle Scholar
  14. Thomson, J. (1954). Tasks and super-tasks. Analysis 15, 1–13. Reprinted in Salmon (1970).Google Scholar
  15. Wilson M. (2009) Determinism and the mystery of the missing physics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60: 173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCalifornia State UniversityFresnoUSA
  2. 2.Division of Humanities and Social SciencesPohang University of Science and TechnologyPohangRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations