This paper forms part of a wider campaign: to deny pointillisme, the doctrine that a physical theory's fundamental quantities are defined at points of space or of spacetime, and represent intrinsic properties of such points or point-sized objects located there; so that properties of spatial or spatiotemporal regions and their material contents are determined by the point-by-point facts. More specifically, this paper argues against pointillisme about the concept of velocity in classical mechanics; especially against proposals by Tooley, Robinson and Lewis. (...) A companion paper argues against pointillisme about -geometry, as proposed by Bricker. To avoid technicalities, I conduct the argument almost entirely in the context of "Newtonian" ideas about space and time, and the classical mechanics of point-particles, i.e. extensionless particles moving in a void. But both the debate and my arguments carry over to relativistic physics. Introduction The wider campaign 2.1 Connecting physics and metaphysics 2.1.1 Avoiding controversy about the intrinsic–extrinsic distinction 2.1.2 Distinction from three mathematical distinctions 2.2 Classical mechanics is not pointilliste, and can be perdurantist 2.2.1 Two versions of pointillisme 2.2.2 Two common claims 2.2.3 My contrary claims 2.3 In more detail... 2.3.1 Four violations of pointillisme 2.3.2 For perdurantism Velocity as intrinsic? 3.1 Can properties represented by vectors be intrinsic to a point? 3.2 Orthodox velocity is extrinsic but local 3.2.1 A question and a debate 3.2.2 The verdict 3.3 Against intrinsic velocity 3.3.1 A common view—and a common problem 3.3.2 Tooley's proposal and his arguments 3.3.3 Tooley's further discussion "Shadow velocities": Lewis and Robinson 4.1 The proposal 4.2 Criticism: the vector field remains unspecified 4.3 Avoiding the presupposition of persistence, using Hilbert's symbol 4.4 Comparison with Robinson and Lewis. (shrink)

This article deals with the question of what time reversal means. It begins with a presentation of the standard account of time reversal, with plenty of examples, followed by a popular non-standard account. I argue that, in spite of recent commentary to the contrary, the standard approach to the meaning of time reversal is the only one that is philosophically and physically viable. The article concludes with a few open research problems about time reversal.

Against what is commonly accepted in many contexts, it has been recently suggested that both deterministic and indeterministic quantum theories are not time‐reversal invariant, and thus time is handed in a quantum world. In this paper, I analyze these arguments and evaluate possible reactions to them. In the context of deterministic theories, first I show that this conclusion depends on the controversial assumption that the wave‐function is a physically real scalar field in configuration space. Then I argue that answers which (...) restore invariance by assuming the wave‐function is a ray in Hilbert space fall short. Instead, I propose that one should deny that the wave‐function represents physical systems, along the lines proposed by the so‐called primitive ontology approach. Moreover, in the context of indeterministic theories, I argue that time‐reversal invariance can be restored suitably redefining its meaning. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that the recent discussion on the time - reversal invariance of classical electrodynamics (see (Albert 2000: ch.1), (Arntzenius 2004), (Earman 2002), (Malament 2004),(Horwich 1987: ch.3)) can be best understood assuming that the disagreement among the various authors is actually a disagreement about the metaphysics of classical electrodynamics. If so, the controversy will not be resolved until we have established which alternative is the most natural. It turns out that we have a paradox, namely that the (...) following three claims are incompatible: the electromagnetic fields are real, classical electrodynamics is time-reversal invariant, and the content of the state of affairs of the world does not depend on whether it belongs to a forward or a backward sequence of states of the world. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to analyze time-asymmetric quantum mechanics with respect to the problems of irreversibility and of time's arrow. We begin with arguing that both problems are conceptually different. Then, we show that, contrary to a common opinion, the theory's ability to describe irreversible quantum processes is not a consequence of the semigroup evolution laws expressing the non-time-reversal invariance of the theory. Finally, we argue that time-asymmetric quantum mechanics, either in Prigogine's version or in Bohm's version, does (...) not solve the problem of the arrow of time because it does not supply a substantial and theoretically founded criterion for distinguishing between the two directions of time. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to analyze time-asymmetric quantum mechanics with respect of its validity as a non time-reversal invariant, time-asymmetric theory as well as of its ability to determine an arrow of time.

Many agree that the pilot-wave theory is to be understood as a first-order theory, in which the law constrains the velocity of the particles. However, while Dürr, Goldstein and Zanghì maintain that the pilot-wave theory is Galilei invariant, Valentini argues that such a symmetry is mathematical but it has no physical significance. Moreover, some wavefunction realists insist that the pilot-wave theory is not Galilei invariant in any sense. It has been maintained by some that this disagreement originates in the disagreement (...) about ontology, as Valentini, contrary to Dürr, Goldstein and Zanghì, has been taken to endorse wavefunction realism. In this paper I argue that Valentini’s argument is independent of the choice of the ontology of matter: it is based of the notion of natural kinematics for a theory, and the idea that the kinematics should match the dynamics. If so, I also argue that there are several reasons to dispute Valentini’s claim that the kinematical symmetries should constrain dynamical ones. (shrink)

Le but de cet article est, à travers l’histoire des relations entre science et philosophie du temps, de retracer l’archéologie épistémologique du temps pensé comme progrès linéaire. Nous voudrions montrer : 1. que la pensée du « temps » évolue avec le temps, 2. que cette évolution peut se lire en même temps en science et en philosophie sans qu’il soit nécessaire d opposer l’une à l’autre, 3. qu’elle n’est pas réductible à une opposition entre réversibilité ou irréversibilité ; 4. (...) qu’elle s’exprime à travers trois « métaphores épistémiques » distinctes : cercle, ligne ou réseau — à l’intérieur desquels l’antinomie entre conception « idéaliste » ou « réaliste » de la temporalité ne cesse de se rejouer ; 5. qu’il est possible de dépasser cette antinomie par l’idée régulatrice d’une fonction cosmologique de la temporalité définie comme la forme de l’interaction entre événements physiques et lois naturelles. (shrink)

Many philosophers of physics take the failure of the laws of physics to be invariant under the time reversal transformation to give us good reason to think that spacetime is temporally anisotropic, yet the details of this inference are rarely made explicit. I discuss two reasonable ways of filling in the details of this inference, the first of which utilizes a symmetry principle proposed by John Earman and the second of which utilizes Harvey Brown’s account of spacetime. I contend that (...) neither of the resulting arguments is sound. (shrink)