On the Non-identity Causal Theory of Spacetime from Causal Set Theory.

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
ERKENNTNIS Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-29 DOI:10.1007/s10670-024-00836-1
Rasmus Jaksland, Niels Linnemann
{"title":"On the Non-identity Causal Theory of Spacetime from Causal Set Theory.","authors":"Rasmus Jaksland, Niels Linnemann","doi":"10.1007/s10670-024-00836-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim to provide a causal theory of spacetime is not new. The overall program, however, was largely deemed unsuccessful, chiefly due to criticism voiced by Smart (Monist 53:385-395, 1969), Nerlich (Br J Philos Sci 33(4):361-388, 1982) and Earman (Synthese 24:74-86, 1972). Recently, Baron and Le Bihan (Noûs 58:202-224, 2023) have argued that developments in contemporary physics should make us reconsider this verdict. More precisely, they argue the emergence of spacetime from causal set theory (CST), where \"the metric structure of spacetime can be recovered from its causal structure\" (Baron and Le Bihan 2023, 2), \"suggests a very natural way to reformulate the causal theory of spacetime\" (ibid., 9)-an account which they end up dubbing the non-identity causal theory. This paper questions the success of Baron and Le Bihan's non-identity theory. It is shown that (1) the specific grounding Baron and Le Bihan propose for timelike and spacelike relations is not plausible even when charitably reconstructed; and (2) that a causal theory of spacetime based on general relativity is just as successful for establishing a non-identity theory as a theory based on CST. In short then, we argue that the causal theory of spacetime proposed by Baron and Le Bihan is supported just as well (or badly) by the physics that already took centre stage in the original discussions of the causal theory of spacetime.</p>","PeriodicalId":47741,"journal":{"name":"ERKENNTNIS","volume":"90 8","pages":"3425-3446"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12715042/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERKENNTNIS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-024-00836-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim to provide a causal theory of spacetime is not new. The overall program, however, was largely deemed unsuccessful, chiefly due to criticism voiced by Smart (Monist 53:385-395, 1969), Nerlich (Br J Philos Sci 33(4):361-388, 1982) and Earman (Synthese 24:74-86, 1972). Recently, Baron and Le Bihan (Noûs 58:202-224, 2023) have argued that developments in contemporary physics should make us reconsider this verdict. More precisely, they argue the emergence of spacetime from causal set theory (CST), where "the metric structure of spacetime can be recovered from its causal structure" (Baron and Le Bihan 2023, 2), "suggests a very natural way to reformulate the causal theory of spacetime" (ibid., 9)-an account which they end up dubbing the non-identity causal theory. This paper questions the success of Baron and Le Bihan's non-identity theory. It is shown that (1) the specific grounding Baron and Le Bihan propose for timelike and spacelike relations is not plausible even when charitably reconstructed; and (2) that a causal theory of spacetime based on general relativity is just as successful for establishing a non-identity theory as a theory based on CST. In short then, we argue that the causal theory of spacetime proposed by Baron and Le Bihan is supported just as well (or badly) by the physics that already took centre stage in the original discussions of the causal theory of spacetime.

从因果集论论时空的非恒等因果论。
提供时空因果理论的目的并不新鲜。然而,整个计划在很大程度上被认为是不成功的,主要是由于Smart (Monist 53:385-395, 1969), Nerlich (Br J Philos Sci 33(4):361-388, 1982)和Earman (Synthese 24:74- 86,1972)提出的批评。最近,Baron和Le Bihan (no s 58:202- 224,2023)认为,当代物理学的发展应该使我们重新考虑这一结论。更准确地说,他们认为时空是从因果集理论(CST)中出现的,其中“时空的度量结构可以从其因果结构中恢复”(Baron和Le Bihan 2023, 2),“提出了一种非常自然的方式来重新表述时空的因果理论”(同上,9)——他们最终将这种解释称为非同一性因果理论。本文对巴伦和勒比汉的非同一性理论的成功与否提出了质疑。结果表明:(1)Baron和Le Bihan提出的类时类空关系的具体基础,即使经过慈善重建也是不合理的;(2)建立在广义相对论基础上的时空因果理论与建立在CST基础上的理论一样成功。简而言之,我们认为巴伦和勒比汉提出的时空因果理论同样得到了物理学的支持,而物理学已经在时空因果理论的原始讨论中占据了中心位置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ERKENNTNIS
ERKENNTNIS PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: Erkenntnis is a philosophical journal publishing papers committed in one way or another to the philosophical attitude which is signified by the label ''scientific philosophy''. It concentrates on those philosophical fields which are particularly inspired by this attitude, although other topics are welcome as well. These fields are:- Epistemology - Philosophy of science, foundations and methodology of science in general and of natural and human sciences such as physics, biology, psychology, economics, social sciences in particular - Philosophy of mathematics - Logic, philosophy of logic, and all kinds of philosophical logics - Philosophy of language - Ontology, metaphysics, theory of modality - Philosophical psychology, philosophy of mind, neurophilosophy - Practical philosophy, i.e. ethics, philosophy of action, philosophy of law, etc. One of the objectives of Erkenntnis is the provision of a suitable platform for the discussion of controversial issues; another is the provision of timely, competent reviews of important publications in an ever-growing field of research.In recent years, philosophers standing quite outside the pale of analytic philosophy have also paid careful, and indeed most welcome, attention to precision of concept and language, to arguments, and to well-grounded foundations. Erkenntnis provides for them, and for philosophers of all persuasions, a place of meeting, of discussion, and of disputation.Erkenntnis was originally founded in 1930 by Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach, it was revived in 1975 by Carl G. Hempel, Wolfang Stegmüller, and Wilhelm K. Essler. You can find more information about this in the article “Hempel: The old and the new ‘Erkenntnis’” accessible in the tabs to the right.Today, Erkenntnis is one of the leading journals in philosophy worldwide and attracts first-class authors at all stages of career; from young philosophers at the PhD level up to established academic philosophers and highly renowned senior scholars. We pride ourselves on supplying our authors with substantial referee reports, subject to a turnaround time of about three months until the first decision. The acceptance rate for publications in the journal is presently slightly below 10%.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书