Mentaculus Laws and Metaphysics
AbstractThe laws of nature are central to our understanding of the world. And while there is often broad agreement about the technical formulations of the laws, there can be sharp disagreement about the metaphysical nature of the laws. For instance, the Newtonian laws of nature can be stated and analyzed by appealing to a set of possible worlds. Yet, some philosophers argue the worlds are mere notational devices, while others take them to be robust, concrete entities in their own right. In this paper, I use a recent view of laws called the Mentaculus as a case study to illustrate the wide variety of metaphysical pictures that can accompany such a view. I conclude that the technical features of the laws -- typically (though not always) given to us by practicing scientists -- are compatible with many different metaphysical foundations.
Albert, D. (2000). Time and Chance, Harvard University Press.
Albert, D. (2015). After Physics, Harvard University Press.
Bird, A. (2007). Nature’s Metaphysics, Oxford University Press.
Cartwright, N. (1999). The Dappled World, Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. and Callender, C. (2009). A better best system account of lawhood, Philosophical Studies 145: 1–34.
Davey, K. (2008). The justification of probability measures in statistical mechanics, Philosophy of Science 75(1): 28–44.
Demarest, H. (2016). The universe had one chance, Philosophy of Science 83(2): 248–264.
Demarest, H. (2017). Powerful properties, powerless laws, in J. Jacobs (ed.), Putting Powers to Work: Causal Powers in Contemporary Metaphysics, Oxford University Press, chapter 4, pp. 38–53.
Earman, J. (2006). The past hypothesis-not even false, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37.
Fernandes, A. (forthcoming). Time, flies, and why we can’t control the past, in B. Loewer, E. Winsberg and B. Weslake (eds), Time’s Arrow and the Probability Structure of the World, Harvard University Press.
Frigg, R. (2008). Chance in boltzmannian statistical mechanics, Philosophy of Science 75(5): 670–681.
Frisch, M. (2011). From arbuthnot to boltzmann: the past hypothesis, the best system, and the special sciences, Philosophy of Science 78(5):1001–1011.
Ismael, J. (2019). On totality. Presented at the Ranch Metaphysics Workshop.
King, J. C. (2007). The Nature and Structure of Content, Oxford University Press.
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean, Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–55.
Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61: 343–377.
Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Loewer, B. (2007a). Counterfactuals and the second law, in H. Price and R. Corry (eds), Causation, physics, and the constitution of reality: Russell’s republic revisited, Oxford University Press.
Loewer, B. (2007b). Laws and natural properties, Philosophical Topics 35(1,2): 313–328.
Loewer, B. (2008). Why there is anything except physics, in J. Howhy and J. Kallestrup (eds), Being Reduced: New Essays on Reduction, Explanation and Causation, Oxford University Press.
Loewer, B. (2009). Why is there anything except physics?, Synthese 170(2): 217–233.
Loewer, B. (2012). Two accounts of laws and time, Philosophical Studies 160(1): 115–137.
Maudlin, T. (2007). The Metaphysics Within Physics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Mumford, S. (2004). Laws in Nature, Routledge.
Norton, J. (2008). The dome: An unexpectedly simple failure of determinism, Philosophy of Science 75(5): 786–798.
Schrenk, M. (2012). Properties for and of better best systems, unpublished.
Shoemaker, S. (1998). Causal and metaphysical necessity, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79: 59–77.
Stalnaker, R. (2003). Ways a World Might Be, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wallace, D. (2010). Gravity, entropy, and cosmology: In search of clarity, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61(3): 513–540.
Wallace, D. (2011). The logic of the past hypothesis. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8894/.
Winsberg, E. (2004). Can conditioning on the ’past hypothesis’ militate against the reversibility objections?, Philosophy of Science 71(4): 489–504.
Base available in www.periodicos.ufsc.br.