Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. What Is a Law of Nature?[author unknown] - 1985 - Philosophy 60 (234):557-558.
  • What numbers could not be.Paul Benacerraf - 1965 - Philosophical Review 74 (1):47-73.
  • .Jeremy Butterfield & John Earman - 1977
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   365 citations  
  • World enough and space‐time: Absolute versus relational theories of space and time.Robert Toretti & John Earman - 1989 - Philosophical Review 101 (3):723.
  • Tractarian nominalism.Brian Skyrms - 1981 - Philosophical Studies 40 (2):199 - 206.
  • New work for a theory of universals.David K. Lewis - 1983 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61 (4):343-377.
  • Foundations of Space-Time Theories.Michael Friedman - 1987 - Noûs 21 (4):595-601.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   242 citations  
  • The metaphysics of modality.Graeme Forbes - 1985 - Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Analytic philosophy has recently demonstrated a revived interest in metaphysical problems about possibility and necessity. Graeme Forbes here provides a careful description of the logical background of recent work in this area for those who may be unfamiliar with it, moving on to d discuss the distinction between modality de re and modality de dicto and the ontological commitments of possible worlds semantics. In addition, Forbes offers a unified theory of the essential properties of sets, organisms, artefacts, substances, and events, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   144 citations  
  • What price spacetime substantivalism? The hole story.John Earman & John Norton - 1987 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515-525.
    Spacetime substantivalism leads to a radical form of indeterminism within a very broad class of spacetime theories which include our best spacetime theory, general relativity. Extending an argument from Einstein, we show that spacetime substantivalists are committed to very many more distinct physical states than these theories' equations can determine, even with the most extensive boundary conditions.
    Direct download (17 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   266 citations  
  • What is a Law of Nature?David Armstrong - 1983 - Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
    First published in 1985, D. M. Armstrong's original work on what laws of nature are has continued to be influential in the areas of metaphysics and philosophy of science. Presenting a definitive attack on the sceptical Humean view, that laws are no more than a regularity of coincidence between stances of properties, Armstrong establishes his own theory and defends it concisely and systematically against objections. Presented in a fresh twenty-first-century series livery, and including a specially commissioned preface written by Marc (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   265 citations  
  • The hole truth.Jeremy Butterfield - 1989 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (1):1-28.
  • Determinism and modality.Carolyn Brighouse - 1997 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (4):465-481.
    The hole argument contends that a substantivalist has to view General Relativity as an indeterministic theory. A recent form of substantivalist reply to the hole argument has urged the substantivalist to identify qualitatively isomorphic possible worlds. Gordon Belot has argued that this form of substantivalism is unable to capture other genuine violations of determinism. This paper argues that Belot's alleged examples of indeterminism should not be seen as a violation of a form of determinism that physicists are interested in. What (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • New work for counterpart theorists: Determinism.Gordon Belot - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (2):185-195.
    Recently Carolyn Brighouse and Jeremy Butterfield have argued that David Lewis's counterpart theory makes it possible both to believe in the reality of spacetime points and to consider general relativity to be a deterministic theory, thus avoiding the ‘hole argument’ of John Earman and John Norton. Butterfield's argument relies on Lewis's own counterpart-theoretic analysis of determinism. In this paper, I argue that this analysis is inadequate. This leaves a gap in the Butterfield–Brighouse defence against the hole argument.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  • Review of D. Armstrong: What is a Law of Nature?[REVIEW]James Woodward - 1985 - Ethics 95 (4):949-951.
  • What is a Law of Nature?D. M. Armstrong - 1983 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Sydney Shoemaker.
    This is a study of a crucial and controversial topic in metaphysics and the philosophy of science: the status of the laws of nature. D. M. Armstrong works out clearly and in comprehensive detail a largely original view that laws are relations between properties or universals. The theory is continuous with the views on universals and more generally with the scientific realism that Professor Armstrong has advanced in earlier publications. He begins here by mounting an attack on the orthodox and (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   608 citations  
  • Foundations of Space-Time Theories.Micheal Friedman - 1983 - Princeton University Press.
  • New Work For a Theory of Universals.David Lewis - 1983 - In D. H. Mellor & Alex Oliver (eds.), Properties. Oxford University Press.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1004 citations  
  • Spacetime and Holes.Carolyn Brighouse - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:117 - 125.
    John Earman and John Norton have argued that substantivalism leads to a radical form of indeterminism within local spacetime theories. I compare their argument to more traditional arguments typical in the Relationist/Substantivalist dispute and show that they all fail for the same reason. All these arguments ascribe to the substantivalist a particular way of talking about possibility. I argue that the substantivalist is not committed to the modal claims required for the arguments to have any force, and show that this (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   50 citations