¿Qué hace físicamente posible a un mundo posible?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2020v24n1p65Resumen
Existe un enfoque ampliamente extendido, que denominaremos Enfoque Estándar, que sostiene que lo físicamente posible está delimitado por la estructura nomológica de las teorías físicas. Sin embargo, este enfoque resulta ser demasiado relajado y permisivo para recoger y sistematizar muchas de las intuiciones modales presentes en la comunidad física. En este trabajo argumentaremos que la noción de posibilidad física es más compleja y rica que lo sugerido por el Enfoque Estándar y; además, que es necesario adicionar algunos elementos extras a la caracterización de posibilidad física para que esta resulte adecuada en contextos científicos.Citas
Armstrong, D. 1978. A Theory of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Armstrong, D. 1983. What Is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Belot, G. 2011. Geometric Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bradley, R. y Swartz, N. 1979. Possible Worlds: An Introduction to Logic and its Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Carroll, J. 2012. Laws of nature, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Cartwright, N. 1983. How the laws of physics lie. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. y Jackson, F. 2001. Conceptual Analysis and Reductive Explanation. Philosophical Review 110: 315–61.
Cohen, J. y Callender, C. 2009. A better best system account of lawhood. Philosophical Studies 145: 1–34.
Earman, J. 1989. A Primer on Determinism. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ellis, B. 2001. Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fine, K. 1994. Essence and Modality. Philosophical Perspectives 8: 1–16.
Godel, K. 1949. An example of a new type of cosmological solution of Einstein`s field equations of gravitation. Review of Modern Physics 21: 447 – 450.
Hall, A. 1985 [1954]. La Revolución Científica. 1500 – 1750. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica.
Hawkin, S. 2011 [1988]. Historia del Tiempo. Del Big – Bang a los Agujeros Negros. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Humberstone, L. 2015. Philosophical Applications of Modal Logic. London: College Publications.
Jubien, M. 1996. Actualism and iterated modalities. Philosophical Studies 84: 109–125. 2009.
Kment, B. 2017. Varieties of Modality in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Edward N. Zalta ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/modality-varieties/.
Koyré, A. 1965. Newtonian Studies. London: Chapman and Hall.
Kripke, S. 1959. A completeness theorem in modal logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 24: 1–15.
Kripke, S. 1963. Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica 16: 83–94.
Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard.
Lange, M. 2007. Laws and meta-laws of nature: Conservation laws and symmetries. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38: 457–481.
Lewis, D. 1973. Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lewis, D. 1986. On The Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.
Loewer, B. 1996. Humean Supervenience. Philosophical Topics 24: 101–126.
Maudlin, T. 2007. The Metaphysics Within Physics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Morris, M., Thorne, K., Yurtsever, U. 1988. Wormholes, Time Machines, and the Weak Energy Condition. Physical Review Letters 61: 1446 – 1449.
Mumford, S. 2004. Laws in Nature. London: Routledge.
Newton, I., Cohen, B., Whitman, A. 1999. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Plantinga, A. 1974. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Priest, G. 2008. An Introduction to Non-classical Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, H. 1975. The Meaning of Meaning. Minnesota: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7: 131-193.
Ruetsche, L. 2013. Interpreting Quantum Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soames, S. 2005. Reference and Description: The Case against Two-Dimensionalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Soames, S. 2011. Kripke on Epistemic and Metaphysical Possibility: Two Routes to the Necessary A posteriori, in Saul Kripke, A. Berger (ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Torii, T. y Shinkai, H. 2013. Wormholes in higher dimensional space-time: Exact solutions and their linear stability analysis. Physical Review D 88: 064027.
Uffink, J. 2001. Bluff your way in the second law of thermodynamics. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 32: 305–394.
Van Inwagen, P. 1986. Two concepts of possible worlds. Midwest Studies in Philosophy XI: 185-213.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Principia http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/index is licenced under a Creative Commons - Atribuição-Uso Não-Comercial-Não a obras derivadas 3.0 Unported.
Base available in www.periodicos.ufsc.br.
