牛顿早期的身体形而上学:不可穿透性、远距离作用和本质引力

Elliott D. Chen
{"title":"牛顿早期的身体形而上学:不可穿透性、远距离作用和本质引力","authors":"Elliott D. Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.06.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this paper, I discuss Newton's conception of body in De gravitatione and its relation to the legitimacy of action at a distance. Howard Stein has argued that such a conception privileges contact over distant action: by dint of being impenetrable, bodies must necessarily act through contact; yet there is no analogous property of which action at a distance is a consequence. This paper presents a challenge to Stein's reading. I begin by arguing that impenetrability cannot imply action through contact because such an implication hinges on one's laws of motion in three senses: it must be physically possible for contact to occur, the laws must make coherent the notion of a trajectory from which a body deviates, and the necessity of introducing collision dynamics renders impenetrability otiose. I then turn to a close reading of De gravitatione and consider whether Newton himself sees his account of body as establishing contact action as prior to distant action in any sense. Although Newton did see impenetrability as rendering bodily action intelligible, ample room remains for action at a distance once one takes into account certain textual ambiguities and the provisional character of the narrative. By way of substantiating this reading and answering an objection of Stein's, I pivot to Newton's remarks concerning the nature of gravity in his correspondence with Bentley. Although Newton is often held to reject essential gravity as being in conflict with his metaphysical commitments, I offer a more austere reading on which Newton is decrying a kind of action that is unmediated, or alleged to take place without a cause. By contrast, Newton carves out a place for action at a distance mediated by an immaterial agent as a perfectly acceptable explanation of natural phenomena.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54442,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","volume":"72 ","pages":"Pages 192-204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.06.003","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Newton's early metaphysics of body: Impenetrability, action at a distance, and essential gravity\",\"authors\":\"Elliott D. Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.06.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In this paper, I discuss Newton's conception of body in De gravitatione and its relation to the legitimacy of action at a distance. Howard Stein has argued that such a conception privileges contact over distant action: by dint of being impenetrable, bodies must necessarily act through contact; yet there is no analogous property of which action at a distance is a consequence. This paper presents a challenge to Stein's reading. I begin by arguing that impenetrability cannot imply action through contact because such an implication hinges on one's laws of motion in three senses: it must be physically possible for contact to occur, the laws must make coherent the notion of a trajectory from which a body deviates, and the necessity of introducing collision dynamics renders impenetrability otiose. I then turn to a close reading of De gravitatione and consider whether Newton himself sees his account of body as establishing contact action as prior to distant action in any sense. Although Newton did see impenetrability as rendering bodily action intelligible, ample room remains for action at a distance once one takes into account certain textual ambiguities and the provisional character of the narrative. By way of substantiating this reading and answering an objection of Stein's, I pivot to Newton's remarks concerning the nature of gravity in his correspondence with Bentley. Although Newton is often held to reject essential gravity as being in conflict with his metaphysical commitments, I offer a more austere reading on which Newton is decrying a kind of action that is unmediated, or alleged to take place without a cause. By contrast, Newton carves out a place for action at a distance mediated by an immaterial agent as a perfectly acceptable explanation of natural phenomena.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\",\"volume\":\"72 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 192-204\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.06.003\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219820300952\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219820300952","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文讨论牛顿在《万有引力论》中的物体概念及其与超距作用合法性的关系。霍华德·斯坦(Howard Stein)认为,这种观念赋予接触比远距离行动更大的特权:由于身体的不可穿透性,身体必须通过接触来行动;然而,并没有类似的性质表明远距离行动是其结果。这篇论文对斯坦因的阅读提出了挑战。我首先要论证的是,不可穿透性不能意味着通过接触产生行动,因为这样的暗示取决于一个人在三个意义上的运动定律:接触必须在物理上是可能发生的,这些定律必须使物体偏离轨迹的概念连贯起来,引入碰撞动力学的必要性使不可穿透性失去意义。然后,我开始仔细阅读《万有引力论》,并考虑牛顿自己是否认为他对身体的描述是在任何意义上建立了接触作用,而不是遥远作用。虽然牛顿确实认为不可穿透性是指身体行为的可理解性,但一旦考虑到某些文本的模糊性和叙述的临时特征,远距离行为仍然有足够的空间。为了证实这篇阅读并回答斯坦因的反对意见,我将重点放在牛顿在与本特利的通信中关于引力本质的评论上。虽然牛顿经常被认为反对本质引力,因为它与他的形而上学承诺相冲突,但我提供了一个更严格的解读,牛顿谴责一种没有中介的行为,或者声称没有原因的行为。相比之下,牛顿在一个非物质媒介介导的距离上为行动开辟了一个空间,作为对自然现象的完全可接受的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Newton's early metaphysics of body: Impenetrability, action at a distance, and essential gravity

In this paper, I discuss Newton's conception of body in De gravitatione and its relation to the legitimacy of action at a distance. Howard Stein has argued that such a conception privileges contact over distant action: by dint of being impenetrable, bodies must necessarily act through contact; yet there is no analogous property of which action at a distance is a consequence. This paper presents a challenge to Stein's reading. I begin by arguing that impenetrability cannot imply action through contact because such an implication hinges on one's laws of motion in three senses: it must be physically possible for contact to occur, the laws must make coherent the notion of a trajectory from which a body deviates, and the necessity of introducing collision dynamics renders impenetrability otiose. I then turn to a close reading of De gravitatione and consider whether Newton himself sees his account of body as establishing contact action as prior to distant action in any sense. Although Newton did see impenetrability as rendering bodily action intelligible, ample room remains for action at a distance once one takes into account certain textual ambiguities and the provisional character of the narrative. By way of substantiating this reading and answering an objection of Stein's, I pivot to Newton's remarks concerning the nature of gravity in his correspondence with Bentley. Although Newton is often held to reject essential gravity as being in conflict with his metaphysical commitments, I offer a more austere reading on which Newton is decrying a kind of action that is unmediated, or alleged to take place without a cause. By contrast, Newton carves out a place for action at a distance mediated by an immaterial agent as a perfectly acceptable explanation of natural phenomena.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 物理-科学史与科学哲学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics is devoted to all aspects of the history and philosophy of modern physics broadly understood, including physical aspects of astronomy, chemistry and other non-biological sciences. The primary focus is on physics from the mid/late-nineteenth century to the present, the period of emergence of the kind of theoretical physics that has come to dominate the exact sciences in the twentieth century. The journal is internationally oriented with contributions from a wide range of perspectives. In addition to purely historical or philosophical papers, the editors particularly encourage papers that combine these two disciplines. The editors are also keen to publish papers of interest to physicists, as well as specialists in history and philosophy of physics.
期刊最新文献
Information is Physical: Cross-Perspective Links in Relational Quantum Mechanics Preface Editorial Board Quantum reaxiomatisations and information-theoretic interpretations of quantum theory Jump ship, shift gears, or just keep on chugging: Assessing the responses to tensions between theory and evidence in contemporary cosmology
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1