Leibnizian Relationalism and the Problem of Inertia

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17 (2):437 - 447 (1987)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I consider the contrast between Leibniz's relational concept of spacetime and Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. I suggest that there are two interpretations of Leibniz's view, which I call L1 and L2. L1 amounts to saying that there is no real inertial structure to spacetime, whereas in general relativity the inertial structure is dynamical or real in Lande's sense ; i.e., it can be ‘kicked’ and ‘kicks back,’ causing gravitational effects. If there is no real inertial structure to space-time then, as Weyl points out, the concept of the relative motive of several bodies has no more foundation than the concept of absolute motion for a single body. Thus, L1 seems to be untenable. L2 is a more sophisticated view which rejects the geometrical aspect of Newtonian space-time as a container for events, but accepts the existence of a real structure which determines the inertial properties of matter.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,225

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

Remarks on Relational Theories of Motion.John Earman - 1989 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 19 (1):83 - 87.
Einstein, Newton and the empirical foundations of space time geometry.Robert DiSalle - 1992 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (3):181 – 189.
There Is No Conspiracy of Inertia.Ryan Samaroo - 2018 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (4):957-982.
Inertial motion, explanation, and the foundations of classical spacetime theories.James Owen Weatherall - 2016 - In Dennis Lehmkuhl, Gregor Schiemann & Erhard Scholz (eds.), Towards a Theory of Spacetime Theories. New York, NY: Birkhauser. pp. 13-42.
Huygens on Inertial Structure and Relativity.Marius Stan - 2016 - Philosophy of Science 83 (2):277-298.
Absolutist and Relational Conceptions of Space-Time.Michel Octave Ghins - 1982 - Dissertation, Universite Catholique de Louvain (Belgium)
A limited conventionalist critique of Newtonian space-time.David Zaret - 1980 - Philosophy of Science 47 (3):474-494.
How (Not) to Define Inertial Frames.Caspar Jacobs - forthcoming - Australasian Journal of Philosophy.
The twins and the bucket: How Einstein made gravity rather than motion relative in general relativity.Michel Janssen - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 43 (3):159-175.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
38 (#591,759)

6 months
9 (#480,483)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Interpreting Heisenberg interpreting quantum states.Simon Friederich - 2012 - Philosophia Naturalis 50 (1):85-114.
Newton, Hermes and Berkeley.M. Hughes - 1992 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (1):1-19.
Remarks on Relational Theories of Motion.John Earman - 1989 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 19 (1):83 - 87.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence.H. G. Alexander - 1956 - Philosophy 32 (123):365-366.
Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science.Hermann Weyl & Olaf Helmer - 1951 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2 (7):257-260.
Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science.Stephen Toulmin - 1950 - Philosophical Review 59 (3):385.
Covariance, invariance, and the equivalence of frames.J. Earman - 1974 - Foundations of Physics 4 (2):267-289.

Add more references