Laws of Nature

  • Erhard Scheibe

Abstract

For a long time the major task in the field of the laws of nature was seen in finding necessary and sufficient criteria for the lawlikeness of a statement occurring in physics.1 But all attempts of this kind have failed, and the papers of this chapter, full of mistakes as they might be, do not repeat the mistake of adding one more proposal of what it is for a statement to be lawlike. Instead the major topic of the chapter is an astonishingly unnoticed phenomenon that may be called the polarity (or complementarity or reciprocity) of generality and coherence. It is treated in all papers (except [15]), with special care in [18] and [19], whereas in [16] and [17] the two side issues of predication and substances in modern physics are added. In [15] the concept of coherence is confronted with that of contingency.

Keywords

Mercury Manifold Coherence Macromolecule Nite 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cf. Scheibe 1973dGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    See also: [4], §III, Scheibe 1973d, 1986b, 1987a and for examples of reduction: Scheibe 1997b and 1999.Google Scholar
  3. *.
    First published as Scheibe 1989cGoogle Scholar
  4. 1.
    Blanshard 1939 and 1961.Google Scholar
  5. 2.
    Blanshard 1939, vol. II, p. 264Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    Wittgenstein 1922Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    Blanshard 1961, p. 92.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    Scheibe 1987aGoogle Scholar
  9. 6.
    In his later writings Heisenberg liked to give this situation in elementary particle physics an interpretation in Platonic terms; see Heisenberg 1984 and 1985Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    Popper 1958, p. 26Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    More details in Scheibe 1984b and 1986cGoogle Scholar
  12. 9.
    Oppenheim/ Putnam 1958, p. 3fGoogle Scholar
  13. 10.
    Minkowski 1909, p. 54Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    K. J. Lambert suggested to me not to use the term “contingency” in this (major) sense because it could easily lead to misunderstandings. I feel that he is right. But in spite of honest efforts during our discussions we could not find a suitable substitute.Google Scholar
  15. *.
    First published as Scheibe 1991bGoogle Scholar
  16. 1.
    On Aristotle’s usage and its gradual distortion see Ch. I of Patzig 31969Google Scholar
  17. 2.
    Russell 1946, pp. 614 ff.Google Scholar
  18. 3.
    Kant 21787, B VIII.Google Scholar
  19. 4.
    Frege 1879Google Scholar
  20. 5.
    Whitehead/ Russell 1910.Google Scholar
  21. 6.
    The beginning of modern semantics was Tarski 1936. Today the model relation is defined in every textbook of logic.Google Scholar
  22. 7.
    An introduction to this tradition is Praenkel et al. 21973.Google Scholar
  23. 9.
    Scheibe 1986d (this vol. ch. VIII.36); Ludwig 1985.Google Scholar
  24. 10.
    Sneed 1971, Ch. IV; Balzer et al. 1987, Ch. II. 2.Google Scholar
  25. 11.
    Scheibe 1982c (this vol. VII.31)Google Scholar
  26. 12.
    A more detailed presentation of this viewpoint is given in Scheibe 1991c (this vol. IV. 18)Google Scholar
  27. 13.
    From a slightly different viewpoint this subject is treated more fully in Scheibe 1989c (this vol. ch. IV.15)Google Scholar
  28. *.
    First published as Scheibe 1991gGoogle Scholar
  29. 1.
    Weingartner 1971Google Scholar
  30. 2.
    Scheibe 1991b (this vol. ch. IV.16) and 1991c (this vol. ch. IV.18)Google Scholar
  31. 3.
    Pauli 1961, p. 94Google Scholar
  32. 4.
    Russell 1946, pp. 614ffGoogle Scholar
  33. 5.
    Ludwig 21990; Scheibe 1986d (this vol. ch. VIII.36) and 1988cGoogle Scholar
  34. 6.
    Locke 1700, II. XXIIL3Google Scholar
  35. 7.
    Leibniz 1765, II. XXIII. 2Google Scholar
  36. 8.
    Schrödinger 1961, pp. 18f; Heisenberg 1953, 1954, and 1969, Ch. 20Google Scholar
  37. 9.
    Leibniz 1686, Sect. 8Google Scholar
  38. 10.
    Leibniz/ Couturat, p. 520Google Scholar
  39. 11.
    Einstein/ Podolsky/ Rosen 1935Google Scholar
  40. *.
    First published as Scheibe 1991c.Google Scholar
  41. 1.
    Pauli 1961, p. 94Google Scholar
  42. 2.
    Hund 1972, p. 274; see also Wigner 1979, p. 3, no.l; Vollmer 1986, pp. 53ffGoogle Scholar
  43. 3.
    Schrödinger 1932, p. 2Google Scholar
  44. 4.
    See the quotations in Mc Mullin 1967, pp. 329f and 356fGoogle Scholar
  45. 5.
    For the following view on theories see Scheibe 1979 (this vol. III.11)Google Scholar
  46. 6.
    See, for instance, Hempel 1965, pp. 264ff, 335ff and 354ff; Nagel 1961, Ch. 4Google Scholar
  47. 7.
    The problem how the domain of application of a physical theory can be described is treated more fully in Stegmüller 1976, Ch. IX.4 and 5Google Scholar
  48. 8.
    Kant 21787, B 39Google Scholar
  49. *.
    First published as Scheibe 1998Google Scholar
  50. 1.
    Cartwright 1983Google Scholar
  51. 2.
    Aristotle, Anal.Post. 71 b33 ff; Metaph. Z 1029 b31 ffGoogle Scholar
  52. 3.
    Einstein 1950, p. 15Google Scholar
  53. 4.
    Moore 1959, pp. 33 and 53Google Scholar
  54. 5.
    Russell 1956, p. 179Google Scholar
  55. 6.
    Bohr 1939, p.24Google Scholar
  56. 7.
    Bohr 1991, pp. 396ff; see also Scheibe 1973c, Ch.IGoogle Scholar
  57. 8.
    p. 3; similar formulations on pp. 54, 56, 72, 73; references to pages only refer to Cartwright 1983Google Scholar
  58. 9.
    p. 4; italics mineGoogle Scholar
  59. 10.
    Boltzmann 1979Google Scholar
  60. 12.
    Mittelstaedt 1970, p.66Google Scholar
  61. 13.
  62. 14.
    Hüttemann 1997Google Scholar
  63. 16.
    Heisenberg 1943, p. 32, italics mineGoogle Scholar
  64. 17.
  65. 18.
    p. 4; italics mineGoogle Scholar
  66. 20.
  67. 21.
  68. 22.
    Scheibe 1995cGoogle Scholar
  69. 23.
    cf. Stegmüller 1983, Ch.VIGoogle Scholar
  70. 24.
    cf. Bourbaki 1968, Ch.IVGoogle Scholar
  71. 25.
    Stegmüller 1976, Ch.IX.4; see also NC’s “as if” operator in 1983, pp. 128ffGoogle Scholar
  72. 26.
    Cf. Blanchard 1939Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erhard Scheibe
    • 1
  1. 1.HamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations