Are Conservation Laws Metaphysically Necessary?

Philosophy of Science 80 (5):898-906 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Are laws of nature necessary, and if so, are all laws of nature necessary in the same way? This question has played an important role in recent discussion of laws of nature. I argue that not all laws of nature are necessary in the same way: conservation laws are perhaps to be regarded as metaphysically necessary. This sheds light on both the modal character of conservation laws and the relationship between different varieties of necessity

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,853

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-12

Downloads
187 (#105,598)

6 months
21 (#126,360)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

J.E. Wolff
University of Edinburgh

References found in this work

Essence and modality.Kit Fine - 1994 - Philosophical Perspectives 8 (Logic and Language):1-16.
Varieties of Necessity.Kit Fine - 2002 - In Tamar Szabo Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford Up. pp. 253-281.
Which symmetry? Noether, Weyl, and conservation of electric charge.Katherine A. Brading - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33 (1):3-22.
Which symmetry? Noether, Weyl, and conservation of electric charge.Katherine A. Brading - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33 (1):3-22.

Add more references