Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T00:20:40.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Where Things Could Be

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jeffrey Sanford Russell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some philosophers respond to Leibniz’s “shift” argument against absolute space by appealing to antihaecceitism about possible worlds, using David Lewis’s counterpart theory. But separated from Lewis’s distinctive system, it is difficult to understand what this doctrine amounts to or how it bears on the Leibnizian argument. In fact, the best way of making sense of the relevant kind of antihaecceitism concedes the main point of the Leibnizian argument, pressing us to consider alternative spatiotemporal metaphysics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 60 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Thanks to Shamik Dasgupta, Jeremy Dolan, Tom Donaldson, Cian Dorr, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Martin Glazier, Boris Kment, Tom Møller-Nielsen, Zee Perry, Oliver Pooley, Erica Shumener, Ted Sider, Olla Solomyak, Syman Stevens, Michael Strevens, Chris Timpson, David Wallace, Jennifer Wang, other participants of the Oxford philosophy of physics seminar and the Cooperative Research Network in Analytic Philosophy modality workshop, and a host of helpful anonymous reviewers. This essay overlaps with the third chapter of my dissertation, “Possible Worlds and the Objective World.”

References

Arntzenius, Frank. 2012. Space, Time, and Stuff. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brighouse, Carolyn. 1994. “Spacetime and Holes.” In PSA 1994: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, ed. David Hull, Micky Forbes, and Richard M. Burian, 117–25. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy. 1989. “The Hole Truth.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, Shamik. 2009. “Individuals: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics.” Philosophical Studies 145 (1): 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, Shamik 2011. “The Bare Necessities.” Philosophical Perspectives 25 (1): 115–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarest, Heather. Forthcoming. “Powerful Properties, Powerless Laws.” In Putting Powers to Work: Causal Powers in Contemporary Metaphysics, ed. Jonathan Jacobs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dreier, James. 2004. “Meta-Ethics and the Problem of Creeping Minimalism.” Philosophical Perspectives 18 (1): 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John. 1989. World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute versus Relational Theories of Space and Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fara, Delia Graff. 2009. “Dear Haecceitism.” Erkenntnis 70 (3): 285–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, Hartry. 1994. “Disquotational Truth and Factually Defective Discourse.” Philosophical Review 103 (3): 405–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, Hartry 2003. “No Fact of the Matter.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (4): 457–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1978. “Model Theory for Modal Logic.” Pt. 1, “The De Re/De Dicto Distinction.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 7 (1): 125–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Kit 2001. “The Question of Realism.” Philosophers’ Imprint 1 (1). http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0001.002.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit 2005. “Reference, Essence, and Identity.” In Modality and Tense: Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1958. “Questions.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 36 (3): 159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, Richard. 2001. “On the Reality of Gauge Potentials.” Philosophy of Science 68 (4): 432–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoefer, Carl. 1996. “The Metaphysics of Space-Time Substantivalism.” Journal of Philosophy 93 (1): 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1975. “How to Russell a Frege-Church.” Journal of Philosophy 72 (19): 716–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kment, Boris. 2012. “Haecceitism, Chance, and Counterfactuals.” Philosophical Review 121 (4): 573–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koppelberg, Sabine. 1989. Handbook of Boolean Algebras. ed. Monk, J. Donald and Bonnet, Robert. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried W., and Clarke, Samuel. 1717/1717. Leibniz and Clarke: Correspondence. ed. Ariew, Roger. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, David 1998. “Relevant Implication.” Theoria 54 (3): 161–74.Google Scholar
Maidens, Anna. 1992. “Review.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (1): 129–36.Google Scholar
Maudlin, Tim. 1990. “Substances and Space-Time: What Aristotle Would Have Said to Einstein.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21 (4): 531–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, Tim 1993. “Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Spacetime Is Probably a Substance.” Philosophy of Science 60 (2): 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, Tim 2002. “Remarks on the Passing of Time.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102:259–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, Tim 2012. Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McGee, Vann, and McLaughlin, Brian. 2000. “The Lessons of the Many.” Philosophical Topics 28 (1): 129–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, Isaac. 1687/1687. Principia. In Philosophical Writings, ed. Janiak, Andrew, 40–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pooley, Oliver. 2006. “Points, Particles and Structural Realism.” In The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity, ed. Rickles, Dean, French, Steven, and Saatsi, Juha, 83–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickles, Dean, French, Steven, and Saatsi, Juha 2013. “The Reality of Spacetime.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Roberts, John T. 2008. “A Puzzle about Laws, Symmetries and Measurability.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2): 143–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Jeffrey Sanford. 2013. “Possible Worlds and the Objective World.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (1). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1933-1592/earlyview.Google Scholar
Saunders, Simon. 1995. “Time, Quantum Mechanics, and Decoherence.” Synthese 102 (2): 235–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, Theodore. 2011. Writing the Book of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skow, Bradford. 2007. “Haecceitism, Anti-Haecceitism and Possible Worlds.” Philosophical Quarterly 58 (230): 98–107.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter. 1988. “The Place of Chance in a World Sustained by God.” In Divine and Human Action: Essays in the Metaphysics of Theism, ed. Morris, Thomas, 211–35. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 1996. Vagueness. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar