The paper shows the standard definition of time at a distance to be beset with ambiguities that may be solved by making a fresh start taking its point of departure in the idea of a cosmic time as proposed by the British tradition of relativistic cosmology.

The paper shows the standard definition of time at a distance to be beset with ambiguities that may be solved by making a fresh start taking its point of departure in the idea of a cosmic time as proposed by the British tradition of relativistic cosmology.

The question dealt with in the article is the following: Is reality a Unity, a Plurality or a Whole. We do not expect to get definit results, we are only interested in pointing out a new ideal of scientific research.Under the predominance of physical thinking science was inclined upon nature as a Unity. The philosophy corresponding with this conception is Monism, to which belong all philosophical systems founded on the mecanistic idea from the primitive Monism ofHaeckel to the most sophisticated (...) Positivism. All these conceptions had to be rejected, because they were not able to eliminate the contingences of reality.Every conception of nature consistent with experience must recognize these contingences of reality. On this bases one can take reality either as a plurality or as a whole. According to the doctrine of pluralism contingence of the laws of nature is an original phenomenon which has to be accepted as such. This would mean the definit solution of the philosophical problems, if this would prove to be the only philosophy founded on the principle of contingence.But there is still such an another conception that is Holism. Here contrary to Pluralism, the domains of reality are not absolutely autonomous but form an organic whole comparable to that of the organs of a living body. In a living body each organ besides having its autonomous life, fulfils a special function in the whole of the organism. In the same science the different domains of reality are only the functionally differenciated organs of the whole nature. Consequently nature is not a passive and mecanistic unity, but an active and creative whole. Each cell is a member of a tissue, each tissue a member of an organ and the organ a member of the whole organism; each of them however has its personal and relatively “autonomous” existence. In the same way physical reality forms a member of organical reality, organical reality a member of psiquical reality, psiquical reality a member of social reality and social reality a member of historical reality. These domains also keep their autonomy and contingence. So the members of an organism can only be explained starting from the superior organ, i.e. in order to understand the functions of the cell one must first know those of the tissue etc. Though different domains of reality can only be understood by deriving in each case the less complicated reality from the more complicated, for instance the physical reality must be derived from organical reality, organical reality from psiquical reality etc. ... The details of the argumentation are given in the treatise itself. In summary the result is a biological conception of nature as a whole instead of physical conception prevalent up to now.La question formulée est la suivante: il s' agit de prouver si la réalité est une unité, une pluralité ou une totalité. Nous ne nous proposons pas trouver des résultats définitifs; nous nous bornerons plutôt à renseigner un nouveau ideal de la connaissance des choses, pour ainsi servir les buts de la science avenir.Sous la prévalence de l'orientation physicale la science tendait à comprendre la nature comme une seule unité. La philosophie qui corresponde à cette conception est le Monisme, qui embrasse tous les systèmes philosophiques fondés sur l'idée mécanistique du monisme primitif deHaeckel jusqu'au positivisme sublime. Toutes ces conceptions ont échoué, car ils n'étaient pas capables d'éliminer les contingences de la réalité.Toute la conception de la nature soutenable du point de vue empirique, doit reconnaître ces contingences de la réalité. Sur cette base on peut comprendre la réalité ou comme une pluralité ou comme une totalité. Selon la doctrine de pluralisme “la contingence des lois de la nature” est un phénomène, qu'on doit accepter comme tel. Il donnerait la solution définitive des problèmes philosophiques, à moins qu'il n'existât une autre philosophie de la réalité fondée, elle aussi, sur la contingence de la nature.Cette nouvelle philosophie est le Holisme.À la difference du pluralisme les rayons de la réalité ne constituent pas des domaines absolument autonomes, mais ils forment une totalité organique comparable à celle des membres d'un corps vivant. Dans un corps vivant chaque organe, entre la vie autonome, remplit une fonction spécifique dans l'ensemble total de l'organisme. De la même façon les différents rayons de la réalité ne sont que des organes fonctionnellement différenciés de la nature totale. Par conséquent, la nature n'est pas une unité passive et mécanistique, mais une totalité active et créatrice. Chaque cellule est un membre du tissu, chaque tissu un membre de l'organe et chaque organe un membre de l'organisme total; cependant chacun d'eux a sa propre existence. D'une manière analogue la réalité physique forme un membre de la réalité organique, la réalité organique un membre de la réalité psychique, la réalité psychique un membre de la réalité sociale, et enfin la réalité sociale un membre de la réalité historique. Toute fois ces rayons conservent leur autonomie et leur contingence. Or, les membres d'un organisme ne peuvent être expliqués qu'en partant de l'organe supérieur, c'est à dire pour comprendre les fonctions de la cellule il faut d'abord connaître celle du tissu et ainsi de suite etc. Les différents rayons de la réalité ne peuvent donc être compris qu'en dérivant, en chaque cas, la réalité moins compliquée, ce qui signifie par exemple qu'on doit dériver la réalité physique de la réalité organique, la réalité organique de la réalité psychique etc. Les détails de l'argumentation sont donnés dans le traité lui-même.En résumé il résulte une conception biologique de la réalité totale au lieu de la conception physique qui prévalait jusqu'ici. (shrink)

This article looks at Vesto Slipher’s work on nebular spectroscopy between 1912 and 1922as well as related research by other astronomers of the period, and it examines the dissem-ination of their results more widely. Slipher’s observations are viewed as marking the di-viding line between speculation about the universe in traditional astronomy and theadvent of modern cosmology and the theory of an expanding universe. The intent is todocument the dissemination of Slipher’s results in the period leading up to the publicationof studies (...) of relativistic cosmology by Willem de Sitter in 1917 and Alexander Friedmannin 1922. Themes touched on in the article include the unprecedented character ofSlipher’sfindings and the interaction of observation and theory in modern cosmology.A prominent concern is the role of technology in astronomical science over the past cen-tury and a half. Here reference is made to the writings of Paul Forman on historical shiftsthat have taken place in our understanding of the relationship of science and technology. (shrink)

We analyzed remarkable stories linked to the famous Anatoly Vlasov equations in plasma physics. Their creation, modification, and application are interesting from a scientific viewpoint. We also show the relations between those equations dealing with electromagnetism and analogous Jeans equations describing, in particular, gravitational instability in astrophysics. The second half of the essay is devoted to the controversies and political struggle in Soviet (before 1991) and Russian (after 1991) physical communities related to Vlasov’s personality, career, and posthumous recognition. The never-ending (...) destructive influence of Russian totalitarianism on science is demonstrated. (shrink)

The debate on the ontological status of spacetime in General Relativity has historically seen two principal philosophical contenders: substantivalism, roughly the view that holds that spacetime exists apart from the material contents of the universe, and relationism, the doctrine that spacetime does not exist, i.e., it is a mere abstract web of spatiotemporal relations among bodies. This dispute, however, has rarely been fought on a cosmological battlefield. In this paper an attempt in this direction is made. The question at issue (...) is the following: is there any feature of our universe that requires or is best explained in terms of a substantival space? I claim that there is indeed: the expansion of the universe, perhaps the most important phenomenon in cosmology, can play such a role. (shrink)

The discovery that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion has brought the basic concept of cosmic expansion into question. An analysis of the evolution of this concept suggests that the paradigm that was finally settled into prior to that discovery was not the best option, as the observed acceleration lends empirical support to an alternative which could incidentally explain expansion in general. I suggest, then, that incomplete reasoning regarding the nature of cosmic time in the derivation of the standard (...) model is the reason why the theory cannot coincide with this alternative concept. Therefore, through an investigation of the theoretical and empirical facts surrounding the nature of cosmic time, I argue that an enduring three-dimensional cosmic present must necessarily be assumed in relativistic cosmology---and in a stricter sense than it has been. Finally, I point to a related result which could offer a better explanation of the empirically constrained expansion rate. (shrink)