Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 160, Issue 1, pp 27–46 | Cite as

Moderate structural realism about space-time

  • Michael EsfeldEmail author
  • Vincent Lam
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper sets out a moderate version of metaphysical structural realism that stands in contrast to both the epistemic structural realism of Worrall and the—radical—ontic structural realism of French and Ladyman. According to moderate structural realism, objects and relations (structure) are on the same ontological footing, with the objects being characterized only by the relations in which they stand. We show how this position fares well as regards philosophical arguments, avoiding the objections against the other two versions of structural realism. In particular, we set out how this position can be applied to space-time, providing for a convincing understanding of space-time points in the standard tensor formulation of general relativity as well as in the fibre bundle formulation.

Keywords

Fibre bundles Hole argument Intrinsic properties Quantum entanglement Relations Space-time points Structural realism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams R.M. (1979). Primitive thisness and primitive identity. Journal of Philosophy 76, 5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auyang S.Y. (1995). How is quantum field theory possible? Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Baez J., Munian J.P. (1994). Gauge fields, knots and gravity. World Scientific, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  4. Belot G., Earman J. (2001). Presocratic quantum gravity. In: Callender C., Huggett N. (eds). Physics meets philosophy at the Planck scale. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 213–255Google Scholar
  5. Bergmann P.G., Komar A. (1960). Poisson brackets between locally defined observables in general relativity. Physical Review Letters 4, 432–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brighouse, C. (1994). Spacetime and holes. In D. Hull, M. Forbes, & R. M. Burian (Eds.), PSA 1994. Proceedings of the 1994 biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association (Vol. 1, pp. 117–125). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  7. Busch J. (2003). What structures could not be. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17, 211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butterfield J., Isham C. (2001). Spacetime and the philosophical challenge of quantum gravity. In: Callender C., Huggett N. (eds). Physics meets philosophy at the Planck scale. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 33–89Google Scholar
  9. Cao T.Y. (2003a). Structural realism and the interpretation of quantum field theory. Synthese 136, 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cao T.Y. (2003b). Can we dissolve physical entities into mathematical structure? Synthese 136, 51–71Google Scholar
  11. Chakravartty A. (2003). The structuralist conception of objects. Philosophy of Science 70, 867–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chakravartty A. (2004). Structuralism as a form of scientific realism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18, 151–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Demopoulos W., Friedman M. (1985). Critical notice: Bertrand Russell’s the analysis of matter: Its historical context and contemporary interest. Philosophy of Science 52, 621–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dipert R.R. (1997). The mathematical structure of the world: The world as a graph. Journal of Philosophy 94, 329–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dorato M. (2000). Substantivalism, relationism, and structural spacetime realism. Foundations of Physics 30, 1605–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dorato, M., & Pauri, M. (2005). Holism and structuralism in classical and quantum general relativity (forthcoming). In S. French, D. Rickles, & J. Saatsi (Eds.), Structural foundations of quantum gravity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001606/Google Scholar
  17. Earman J. (2006). Two challenges to the requirement of substantive general covariance. Synthese 148, 443–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Earman J., Norton J. (1987). What price spacetime substantivalism? The hole story. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38, 515–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Esfeld M. (2004). Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35B, 601–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. French S., Ladyman J. (2003). Remodelling structural realism: Quantum physics and the metaphysics of structure. Synthese 136, 31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. French S., Redhead M.L.G. (1988). Quantum physics and the identity of indiscernibles. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39, 233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heller M. (1992). Theoretical foundations of cosmology. World Scientific, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoefer C. (1996). The metaphysics of space-time substantivalism. Journal of Philosophy 93, 5–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics. A defence of conceptual analysis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Ladyman J. (1998). What is structural realism? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Science 29, 409–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Langton R. (1998). Kantian humility. Our ignorance of things in themselves. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Langton R., Lewis D. (1998). Defining ‘intrinsic’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58, 333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis D. (1986). Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis D. (2001). Redefining ‘intrinsic’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63, 381–398Google Scholar
  30. Lusanna, L., & Pauri, M. (2005). General covariance and the objectivity of space-time point-events, Invited Contribution to the ESF 2004 Oxford Conference on Space-Time, arXiv: gr-qc/0503069.Google Scholar
  31. Pooley O. (2005). Points, particles, and structural realism (forthcoming). In: French S., Rickles D., Saatsi J. (eds). Structural foundations of quantum gravity. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Psillos, S. (2004). The structure, the whole structure and nothing but the structure (forthcoming). In Philosophy of Science. Proceedings of the 2004 biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, ttp://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002068/Google Scholar
  33. Quine W.V.O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review 60, 20–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rovelli C. (2004). Quantum gravity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Slowik E. (2005). Spacetime, ontology, and structural realism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19, 147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stachel J. (1986). What a physicist can learn from the discovery of general relativity. In: Ruffini R. (eds). Proceedings of the fourth Marcel Grossmann meeting on general relativity. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1857–1862Google Scholar
  37. Stachel J. (1993). The meaning of general covariance. The hole story. In: Earman J., Janis I., Massey G.J., Rescher N. (eds). Philosophical problems of the internal and external worlds. Essays on the philosophy of Adolf Gruenbaum. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 129–160Google Scholar
  38. Stachel, J. (2002). ‘The relations between things’ versus ‘The things between relations’: The deeper meaning of the hole argument. In D. B. Malament (Ed.), Reading natural philosophy. Essays in the history and philosophy of science and mathematics (pp. 231–266). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  39. Stachel, J., & Iftime, M. (2005). Fibered manifolds, natural bundles, structured sets, G-spaces and all that: The hole story from space-time to elementary particles, preprint, arXiv: gr-qc/0505138, to appear in J. Stachel, Going Critical. Vol. 2. The practice of relativity. Dordercht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  40. Synge, J. L. (1960). Relativity: The general theory. North Holland: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  41. Trautman A. (1980). Fibre bundles, gauge fields, and gravitation. In: Held A. (eds). General relativity and gravitation: One hundred years after the birth of Albert Einstein. Plenum, New York, pp. 287–308Google Scholar
  42. Wald R.M. (1984). General relativity. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  43. van Fraassen B.C. (1997). Structure and perspective: Philosophical perplexity and paradox. In: Dalla Chiara M.L. (eds). Logic and scientific methods. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 511–530Google Scholar
  44. Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of two worlds? Dialectica, 43, 99–124. Reprinted in D. Papineau (ed.): 1996, The philosophy of science (pp. 139–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy & Centre romand for Logic, History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations