Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-d7bbv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T02:27:27.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Spacetime is Probably A Substance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Tim Maudlin
Tim Maudlin*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper sketches a taxonomy of forms of substantivalism and relationism concerning space and time, and of the traditional arguments for these positions. Several natural sorts of relationism are able to account for Newton's bucket experiment. Conversely, appropriately constructed substantivalism can survive Leibniz's critique, a fact which has been obscured by the conflation of two of Leibniz's arguments. The form of relationism appropriate to the Special Theory of Relativity is also able to evade the problems raised by Field. I survey the effect of the General Theory of Relativity and of plenism on these considerations.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 183 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1993

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I am indebted to Paul Teller and John Norton for their comments.

‡

Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, Davidson Hall, Douglass Campus, P. O. Box 270, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0270, USA.

References

Descartes, R. ([1644] 1984), Principles of Philosophy. Translated by V. R. Miller and R. P. Miller. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1989), World Enough and Time: Absolute vs. Relational Theories of Space-Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Earman, J. and Norton, J. (1987), “What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Whole Story”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38: 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, H. (1985), “Can We Dispense with Space-Time?”, in Asquith, P. D. and Kitcher, P. (eds.), PSA 1984, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 33–90.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1983), Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Geroch, R. (1978), General Relativity from A to B. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1956), The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence. Edited by Alexander, H. G. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (1989), “The Essence of Space-Time”, in Fine, A. and Leplin, J. (eds.), PSA 1988, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 82–91.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (1990), “Substances and Space-Time: What Aristotle Would Have Said to Einstein”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 21: 531–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, G. (1976), The Shape of Space. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newton, I. ([1729] 1962), Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translation by A. Motte and F. Cajori. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. (1976), Space, Time, and Spacetime. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Will, C. M. (1986), Was Einstein Right? New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Witten, E. (1988), “Topological Quantum Field Theory”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 117: 353–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar