The representation of time from 1700 to the present

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

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 languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationStudies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics
PublisherSpringer International Publishing
Pages127-141
Number of pages15
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Publication series

NameStudies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics
Volume30
ISSN (Print)2192-6255
ISSN (Electronic)2192-6263

Fingerprint

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Discourse
Complementarity
Dialectics
Particle
General Relativity
Theory of Relativity
Referential
Arrow of Time
Thermodynamics
Quantum Mechanics
Concept of Time
Newtonian Mechanics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Philosophy

Cite this

Grosholz, E. R. (2016). The representation of time from 1700 to the present. In Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics (pp. 127-141). (Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics; Vol. 30). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46690-3_7
Grosholz, Emily Rolfe. / The representation of time from 1700 to the present. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics. Springer International Publishing, 2016. pp. 127-141 (Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics).
@inbook{225f6065ac164edab282d4015bf9586c,
title = "The representation of time from 1700 to the present",
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.",
author = "Grosholz, {Emily Rolfe}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-46690-3_7",
language = "English (US)",
series = "Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics",
publisher = "Springer International Publishing",
pages = "127--141",
booktitle = "Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics",

}

Grosholz, ER 2016, The representation of time from 1700 to the present. in Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol. 30, Springer International Publishing, pp. 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46690-3_7

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 proceedingChapter

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 -

Grosholz ER. The representation of time from 1700 to the present. In Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics. Springer International Publishing. 2016. p. 127-141. (Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46690-3_7