We divide analytic metaphysics into naturalistic and non-naturalistic metaphysics. The latter we define as any philosophical theory that makes some ontological (as opposed to conceptual) claim, where that ontological claim has no observable consequences. We discuss further features of non-naturalistic metaphysics, including its methodology of appealing to intuition, and we explain the way in which we take it to be discontinuous with science. We outline and criticize Ladyman and Ross's 2007 epistemic argument against non-naturalistic metaphysics. We then present our own (...) argument against it. We set out various ways in which intellectual endeavours can be of value, and we argue that, in so far as it claims to be an ontological enterprise, non-naturalistic metaphysics cannot be justified according to the same standards as science or naturalistic metaphysics. The lack of observable consequences explains why non-naturalistic metaphysics has, in general, failed to make progress, beyond increasing the standards of clarity and precision in expressing its theories. We end with a series of objections and replies. (shrink)

In this paper I wish to make some headway on understanding what \emph{kind} of problem the ``problem of time'' is, and offer a possible resolution---or, rather, a new way of understanding an old resolution. The response I give is a variation on a theme of Rovelli's \emph{evolving constants of motion} strategy. I argue that by giving correlation strategies a \emph{structuralist} basis, a number of objections to the standard account can be blunted. Moreover, I show that the account I offer provides (...) a suitable ontology for time in both classical and quantum canonical general relativity. (shrink)

The debate on the conventionality of simultaneity and the debate on the dimensionality of the world have been central in the philosophy of special relativity. The link between both debates however has rarely been explored. The purpose of this paper is to gauge what implications the former debate has for the latter. I show the situation to be much more subtle than was previously argued, and explain how the ontic versus epistemic distinction in the former debate impacts the latter. Despite (...) claims to the contrary, I conclude that special relativity leaves the debate on the dimensionality of the world underdetermined. (shrink)

Der Artikel setzt sich mit Cassirers Erklärung für die durch die Relativitätstheorie aufgestellten philosophischen Probleme auseinander. Die Hauptfrage richtet sich darauf, wie Cassirer als Neukantianer auf Einsteins Entdeckungen antwortet. Das Problem, das hierbei aufkommt, ist die Präsupposition von der aprioristischen Natur der euklidischen Geometrie. Cassirers Antwort liegt in der Begründung, dass Kants Philosophie ausreichend breit angelegt sei, um auch nicht-euklidische Geometrien in die Determinierung der physikalischen Welt mit einzubeziehen. Er tut es, indem er aufweist, dass Kant, auch wenn er sie (...) für Formen der reinen Intuition hielt, Zeit und Raum mit bestimmten theoretischen Faktoren, mit Erkenntnisregeln in Verbindung brachte. Der Raum als reine Koexistenzform und die Zeit als reine Sukzessionsform implizieren keine besonderen Messrelationen, und es wäre folglich falsch, eine aprioristische Natur der Euklid’schen Geometrie anzunehmen. Die Art der Anwendung verschiedener Geometrien bei der Determinierung der physikalischen Welt wird erklärt in Anlehnung an Kleins Geometrieansatz, bei dem geometrische Eigenschaften vor dem Hintergrund einer bestimmten Gruppe von Transformationen als invariant bleibende angesehen werden. Das Konzept der Gruppe stellt das eigentliche Konzept a priori dar. Die Gruppentheorie spielt sogar eine größere Rolle sowohl in physikalischen Theorien als auch in Cassirers Epistemologie. Denn mit der Relativitätstheorie wird offenkundig, dass physikalische Theorien gegenüber einer Transformationsgruppe Invarianztheorien sind. Cassirer behauptet, dass die allgemeine Lehre von der Unveränderlichkeit bestimmter Werte in irgendeiner Form in jeglicher Theorie der Natur zurückkehren müsse, weil sie zur logischen und epistemologischen Natur einer solchen Theorie gehöre. (shrink)

Many are committed to the idea that the present generation has obligations to future generations, for example, obligations to preserve the environment and certain natural resources for those generations. However, some philosophers want to explain why we have these obligations in terms of correlative rights that future persons have against persons in the present. Attributing such rights to future persons is controversial, for there seem to be compelling arguments against the position. According to the “nonexistence” argument, future persons cannot have (...) rights (and so should not be attributed rights) because they do not exist. According to the “no-satisfaction” argument, future persons cannot have a right to resources that do not exist at the time of their existence because such a right could not, in principle, be satisfied. In this paper, I will argue that an eternalist ontology of time provides the resources for satisfactorily responding to both the nonexistence and the no-satisfaction arguments. (shrink)