Can Parts of Space Move? On Paragraph Six of Newton’s Scholium

Erkenntnis 62 (1):119-135 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Paragraph 6 of Newton's Scholium argues that the parts of space cannot move. A premise of the argument -- that parts have individuality only through an "order of position" -- has drawn distinguished modern support yet little agreement among interpretations of the paragraph. I argue that the paragraph offers an a priori, metaphysical argument for absolute motion, an argument which is invalid. That "order of position" is powerless to distinguish one part of Euclidean space from any other has gone virtually unremarked. It remains uncertain what the import of the paragraph is but it is not close to apparently similar arguments of Leibniz.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,611

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Newton, the Parts of Space, and the Holism of Spatial Ontology.Edward Slowik - 2011 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 1 (2):249-272.
Newton and Descartes: Theology and natural philosophy.Andrew Janiak - 2012 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (3):414-435.
Why the parts of absolute space are immobile.Nick Huggett - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):391-407.
Two For the Ages: Origen and Newton.Gary Patterson - 2010 - In Melville Y. Stewart (ed.), Science and Religion in Dialogue. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 335--344.
Newton's Ontology of Omnipresence and Infinite Space.J. E. McGuire & Edward Slowik - 2013 - Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 6:279-308.
The theology of Isaac Newton's principia mathematica : A preliminary survey.Stephen D. Snobelen - 2010 - Neue Zeitschrift für Systematicsche Theologie Und Religionsphilosophie 52 (4):377-412.
Newton's Philosophy of Time.Eric Schliesser - 2013 - In Heather Dyke & Adrian Bardon (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Time. Chichester, UK: Wiley. pp. 87–101.
Reflections on parity nonconservation.Nick Huggett - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (2):219-241.
Newton’s Neo-Platonic Ontology of Space.Edward Slowik - 2013 - Foundations of Science 18 (3):419-448.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-02-04

Downloads
17 (#875,159)

6 months
3 (#984,719)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Graham Nerlich
University of Adelaide

Citations of this work

Why the parts of absolute space are immobile.Nick Huggett - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):391-407.
Newton, the Parts of Space, and the Holism of Spatial Ontology.Edward Slowik - 2011 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 1 (2):249-272.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The identity of indiscernibles.Max Black - 1952 - Mind 61 (242):153-164.
What price spacetime substantivalism? The hole story.John Earman & John Norton - 1987 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515-525.
Space, Time, and Spacetime.Lawrence Sklar - 1974 - University of California Press.
Newtonian space-time.Howard Stein - 1967 - Texas Quarterly 10 (3):174--200.

View all 12 references / Add more references