Abstract
Leibniz influenced the contemporary cosmologists Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin, an influence I trace at the beginning of this chapter, which examines debates over the nature of time in recent centuries. I look at the revision of the concept of time occasioned by 19th c. Thermodynamics, and then Boltzmann’s attempt to reconcile it with Newtonian mechanics: is the arrow of time (so referentially compelling) real, or can it be explained away by an analytic discourse? During the 20th century, in a sense classical General Relativity Theory continued the Newtonian tradition of an analytic, geometrical theory of time, and Quantum Mechanics continued the Leibnizian tradition of a referential theory of time elicited from the dynamical object (molecular, atomic, and subatomic particles); and the dialectic, modified, continues into the current century. I argue that the heterogeneity of the discourses and their complementarity are useful for the advance of science; and that the interesting philosophical question is how the two approaches interact.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics |
| Publisher | Springer International Publishing |
| Pages | 127-141 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2016 |
Publication series
| Name | Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics |
|---|---|
| Volume | 30 |
| ISSN (Print) | 2192-6255 |
| ISSN (Electronic) | 2192-6263 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Philosophy
Cite this
}
The representation of time from 1700 to the present. / Grosholz, Emily Rolfe.
Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics. Springer International Publishing, 2016. p. 127-141 (Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics; Vol. 30).Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter
TY - CHAP
T1 - The representation of time from 1700 to the present
AU - Grosholz, Emily Rolfe
PY - 2016/1/1
Y1 - 2016/1/1
N2 - Leibniz influenced the contemporary cosmologists Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin, an influence I trace at the beginning of this chapter, which examines debates over the nature of time in recent centuries. I look at the revision of the concept of time occasioned by 19th c. Thermodynamics, and then Boltzmann’s attempt to reconcile it with Newtonian mechanics: is the arrow of time (so referentially compelling) real, or can it be explained away by an analytic discourse? During the 20th century, in a sense classical General Relativity Theory continued the Newtonian tradition of an analytic, geometrical theory of time, and Quantum Mechanics continued the Leibnizian tradition of a referential theory of time elicited from the dynamical object (molecular, atomic, and subatomic particles); and the dialectic, modified, continues into the current century. I argue that the heterogeneity of the discourses and their complementarity are useful for the advance of science; and that the interesting philosophical question is how the two approaches interact.
AB - Leibniz influenced the contemporary cosmologists Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin, an influence I trace at the beginning of this chapter, which examines debates over the nature of time in recent centuries. I look at the revision of the concept of time occasioned by 19th c. Thermodynamics, and then Boltzmann’s attempt to reconcile it with Newtonian mechanics: is the arrow of time (so referentially compelling) real, or can it be explained away by an analytic discourse? During the 20th century, in a sense classical General Relativity Theory continued the Newtonian tradition of an analytic, geometrical theory of time, and Quantum Mechanics continued the Leibnizian tradition of a referential theory of time elicited from the dynamical object (molecular, atomic, and subatomic particles); and the dialectic, modified, continues into the current century. I argue that the heterogeneity of the discourses and their complementarity are useful for the advance of science; and that the interesting philosophical question is how the two approaches interact.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019688516&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019688516&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-46690-3_7
DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-46690-3_7
M3 - Chapter
AN - SCOPUS:85019688516
T3 - Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics
SP - 127
EP - 141
BT - Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics
PB - Springer International Publishing
ER -