Wszechświat blokowy w kontekście nowego substancjalizmu czasoprzestrzennego

Damian Luty

doi:10.18778/1689-4286.30.11

Authors

Damian Luty Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewiczań

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1689-4286.30.11

Keywords:

radical Block Universe, new spacetime substantivalism, hole argument, time, diffeomorphisms

Abstract

The goal of the paper is to present the problem of time, which emerges in the context of the discussion about the ontological status of spacetime. The problem is a consequence of the progress of the participants of the discussion due to the application of the hole argument to the dispute. I present the shortened history of the hole argument, characterize the participants of the mentioned dispute, their development, I give a formulation of the timeless ontology and the attempts to negate it by the new spacetime substantivalists. I present and discuss a thesis suggesting that those attempts are futile.

References

Butterfield, J., 1989, “The Hole Truth”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40, s. 1–28.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/40.1.1

Earman, J., Norton, J. D., 1987, “What Price Spacetime Substantivalism,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38, s. 515–525.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/38.4.515

Earman, J., 1989, World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute Versus Relational Theories of Space and Time, MIT Press Classics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; London.
View in Google Scholar

Earman, J., 2003, Tracking down gauge: an ode to the constrained Hamiltonian formalism, [w:] K. Brading, E. Castellani (eds.), Symmetries in Physics. Philosophical reflections, Cambridge University Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511535369.009

Einstein, A., 1914, “Die formale Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitaetstheorie”, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungberichte, s. 1030–1085.
View in Google Scholar

Gołosz, J., 2001, Spór o naturę czasu i przestrzeni, Wyd. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków.
View in Google Scholar

Hilbert, D., 1917, “Die Grundlagen der Physik (Zweite Mitteilung.)”, Nachr. Koenigl. Gesellsch. Wiss. Goettingen, Math.-Phys. Kl., s. 53–76.
View in Google Scholar

Hoefer, C., Cartwright, N., 1993, “Substantivalism and the Hole Argument,” [w:] J. Earman et al. (eds), Philosophical Problems of the Internal and External Worlds: Essays on the Philosophy of Adolf Gruenbaum,: University of Pittsburgh Press/Konstanz: Universitaetsverlag Konstanz, Pittsburgh/Konstanz, s. 23–43.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5vkgg6.5

Maudlin, T., 2002, “Thoroughly Muddled McTaggart: Or, How to Abuse Gauge Freedom to Create Metaphysical Monstrosities”, Philosophers’ Imprint 2 (4), , s. 1–23.
View in Google Scholar

Rickles, D., 2005, What price determinism? A Whole Other Story!, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2286/1/WPD(Rickles).pdf [dostęp: 28.10.2014]
View in Google Scholar

Rovelli, C., 2004, Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755804

Rynasiewicz, R., 1994, “The Lessons of the Hole Argument”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45, s. 407–436.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/45.2.407

Rynasiewicz, R., 1996, “Absolute Versus Relational Space-Time: An Outmoded Debate?”, The Journal of Philosophy 93, s. 279–306.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2941076

Teller, P., 1998, “Quantum Mechanics and Haecceities”, [w:] E. Castellani (ed.), Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics, Princeton University Press, s. 114–141.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691222042-010

Wald, R. M., 1984, General Relativity, Univ. of Chicago Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226870373.001.0001