Quantitative Properties

Eddon, M.

doi:10.1111/phc3.12049

Cited by 31 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another objection to this example might be advanced from the literature on the metaphysics of quantities. Motivated perhaps by relationism (Barbour, 2000), one might insist that physical quantities such as distance should be understood as grounded in or determined in virtue of their comparative relationships (Dasgupta, 2013) such as proportions (Eddon, 2013). Then in fact all the mathematical Schwarzschild spacetimes would represent a single physical state of affairs, for all the relational distance facts in each of the models are the same.…”

Section: Units In and Multiplicity Of Schwarzschild Spacetimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Representational Capacities, with an Application to General Relativity

Fletcher

2018

Found Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work on the hole argument in general relativity by Weatherall (2016b) has drawn attention to the neglected concept of (mathematical) models' representational capacities. I argue for several theses about the structure of these capacities, including that they should be understood not as many-to-one relations from models to the world, but in general as many-tomany relations constrained by the models' isomorphisms. I then compare these ideas with a recent argument by Belot (2017) for the claim that some isometries "generate new possibilities" in general relativity. Philosophical orthodoxy, by contrast, denies this. Properly understanding the role of representational capacities, I argue, reveals how Belot's rejection of orthodoxy does not go far enough, and makes better sense of our practices in theorizing about spacetime. * I would like to thank Gordon Belot, Neil Dewar, Ben Feintzeig, Jim Weatherall, and an anonymous referee for encouraging comments on a previous draft of this essay, which was written in part with the support from a Marie Curie Fellowship (PIIF-GA-2013-628533).1 See also Earman (1989). For reviews of the vast literature on the subject, from a range of philosophical and physical perspectives, including its bearing on broader debates about the metaphysics of spacetime, see Pooley (2013), Stachel (2014), Norton (2015, and references therein.

show abstract

Section: Units In and Multiplicity Of Schwarzschild Spacetimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Representational Capacities, with an Application to General Relativity

Fletcher

2018

Found Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mundy (1987) can be understood as holding that the property of being 2kg mass, and all other particular mass properties, are fundamental, while Field's views about quantities (Field 1980) suggest that it is the "mass-less" and "mass-congruence" relations that are fundamental (intuitively, a mass-less b holds iff a is less massive than b, and a, b are mass-congruent to c, d holds iff the difference in mass between a and b is the same as the difference in mass between c and d). There are other views also (surveyed in Eddon 2013). I think that these questions about the nature less, interesting, worthy of our attention.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

The Metaphysics of Quantities and Their Dimensions

Skow¹

2017

Oxford Studies in Metaphysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantities have dimensions. Force, mass, and acceleration are quantities-for now let this just mean that they may be faithfully measured by numbers-, and the dimension of force is "ML{T 2 ," the dimension of mass is "M," and the dimension of acceleration is "L{T 2 ," where "M" stands for mass, "L" for length, and "T " for time, or duration. While the notion of a quantity is familiar to those with only a passing acquaintance with physics, the notion of a quantity's dimension is probably not. 1 Even though they are unfamiliar, dimensions play a variety of important roles in physics, and science generally. Perhaps the most important one is the role they play in the technique of "dimensional analysis." One of the aims of physics is to discover laws, and laws of physics usually take the form of relations between quantities-Newton's second law, F " ma, is a relation between the quantities force, mass, and acceleration. Newton's discovery of this law involved, in part, consulting a lot of observational evidence. Dimensional analysis is a different technique for discovering law-like relations between quantities, one that doesn't involve inferring a generalization from a collection of instances. If you know only that some law or other relates force, mass, and acceleration, but you also know the dimensions of these quantities, and a few other facts, you can use dimensional analysis to con-To appear in Oxford Studies in Metaphysics. 1 The notion of the dimension of a quantity has nothing to do with the familiar notion of a dimension of space.

show abstract

“…See Eddon (: 637). An alternative approach would run along the lines of Field (), who seeks to characterize the structure of quantities using primitive many‐place predicates rather than invoking relations between individuals and mathematical entities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Resemblance

Cowling

2017

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our ordinary judgments and our metaphysical theories share a common commitment to facts about resemblance. The nature of resemblance is, however, a matter of no small controversy. This essay examines some of the pressing questions that arise regarding the status and structure of resemblance. Among those to be discussed in what follows: what kinds of resemblance relations are there? Can resemblance be analyzed in terms of the sharing of properties? Is resemblance an objective or subjective matter? What, if any, resemblance facts are fundamental? How does resemblance relate to naturalness?Platitudes aside, few things are more similar than apples and oranges. Consider, then, a more heterogeneous list of entities: the Stanley Cup, the Fourth Century BCE, Caddyshack, the Twin Prime Conjecture, and the property of punctuality. None of these entities resemble one another nearly as much as an apple resembles an orange. In fact, their marked differences rule out any easy verdict on which are most similar to which. And, while it is commonplace to assume that we can aptly speak about relations of similarity among ordinary entities like apples and oranges, it is far from obvious that the resemblance structure of reality-the distribution of similarity relations among entities-is so rich as to settle any and every question we might pose about resemblance. For instance, is Caddyshack more like the Twin Prime Conjecture or the Stanley Cup? To what degree do the Fourth Century BCE and punctuality resemble one another? To take sides on these issues is, in part, to take sides on a debate about the resemblance structure of the world. Conversely, to take sides on issues about resemblance is to settle (or, of necessity, leave unsettled) these and other questions about what is similar to what.The motivation for trying to understand the nature of similarity is obvious enough: it plays a ubiquitous role in cognition. Among many other roles, it underwrites our categorization of entities, our recognition of patterns, and perhaps our inductive and analogical reasoning. 1 So, to the extent we seek a metaphysical explanation of the successes or failings of our cognition, we owe some metaphysical explanation of facts about resemblance. This essay surveys some of the metaphysical concerns that arise in making sense of resemblance. (Throughout, I use "resemblance" and "similarity" interchangeably. 2 ) These by no means exhaust the issues raised by resemblance, but they are among the most important in developing a full-fledged metaphysics of resemblance.In Section Two, some species of resemblance are introduced and the connection between resemblance and properties is discussed. In Section Three, Nelson Goodman's influential arguments regarding resemblance and, in particular, the connection between properties and resemblance are examined. After marking some additional puzzles about the

show abstract

Quantitative Properties

Cited by 31 publications

References 32 publications

On Representational Capacities, with an Application to General Relativity

On Representational Capacities, with an Application to General Relativity

The Metaphysics of Quantities and Their Dimensions

Resemblance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About