dc.contributor.author
Hirèche, Salim
dc.contributor.author
Linnemann, Niels
dc.contributor.author
Michels, Robert
dc.contributor.author
Vogt, Lisa
dc.date.accessioned
2022-01-03T09:47:52Z
dc.date.available
2022-01-03T09:47:52Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/32362
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-32087
dc.description.abstract
A common feature of all standard theories of the laws of nature is that they are ‘absolutist’: They take laws to be either all metaphysically necessary or all contingent. Science, however, gives us reason to think that there are laws of both kinds, suggesting that standard theories should make way for ‘non-absolutist’ alternatives: theories which accommodate laws of both modal statuses. In this paper, we set out three explanatory challenges for any candidate non-absolutist theory, and discuss the prospects of the two extant candidates in light of these challenges. We then develop our own non-absolutist theory, the essentialist DTA account, which combines the nomic-necessitation or DTA account with an essentialist approach to metaphysical modality in order to meet the three explanatory challenges. Finally, we argue that the distinction between kinematical and dynamical laws found in physical theories supports both non-absolutism in general and our proposed essentialist DTA view in particular.
en
dc.format.extent
42 Seiten
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
Laws of nature
en
dc.subject
Metaphysical necessity
en
dc.subject
Nomic necessity
en
dc.subject
Necessitarianism about laws of nature
en
dc.subject
Kinematical/dynamical distinction
en
dc.subject.ddc
100 Philosophie und Psychologie::100 Philosophie::102 Verschiedenes
dc.title
The strong arm of the law: a unified account of necessary and contingent laws of nature
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1007/s11229-021-03243-z
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
Synthese
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
3-4
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart
10211
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend
10252
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
199
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.url
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03243-z
refubium.affiliation
Philosophie und Geisteswissenschaften
refubium.affiliation.other
Institut für Philosophie
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
1573-0964
refubium.resourceType.provider
WoS-Alert