Physical Systems pp 1-30 | Cite as

# Physical Systems and Physical Thought

- 631 Downloads

## Abstract

The notion of *physical system* is so ubiquitous it is mentioned in almost every work in physics. Scientists use the term, without much reflection, to refer to an aggregate of physical objects. Attention is sometimes directed to a system when one is interested in the system’s components and their distinct states and properties. But more often, physicists are concerned with the arrangement of the parts and interactions between the parts. They use various theoretical constructs to single out states and properties of the composite system; states and properties that either supervene on the particular configuration of the parts or constitute non-supervening, emergent features.

## Keywords

Physical System Composite System Proper Part Spacetime Structure Composite Object## References

- Bell, J. S. 1987.
*Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics*. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Belousek, D. 2003. “Non-separability, Non-supervenience, and Quantum Ontology.”
*Philosophy of Science*70:791–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Carnap, R. 1922.
*Der Raum*. Berlin: Reuther and Reichard.Google Scholar - Earman, H., and M. Friedman. 1973. “The Meaning and Status of Newton’s First Law of Inertia and the Nature of Gravitational Forces.”
*Philosophy of Science*40(3):329–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - French, S. 1989. “Individuality, Supervenience and Bell’s Theorem.”
*Philosophical Studies*55: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Friedman, M. 1983.
*Foundations of Space-time Theories*. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar - Friedman, M. 1999.
*Reconsidering Logical Positivism*. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Hanson, N. R. 1965. “Newton’s First Law; A Philosopher’s Door into Natural Philosophy.” In
*Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays In Contemporary Science and Philosophy*, edited by R. G. Colodny, 6–28. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar - Healey, R. 1991. “Holism and Nonseparability.”
*Journal of Philosophy*88(8):393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Howard, D. 1985. “Einstein on Locality and Separability.”
*Studies in History and Philosophy of Science*16(3):171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Howard, D. 1989. “Holism, Separability and the Metaphysical Implications of the Bell Experiments.” In
*Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem*, edited by J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar - Jarrett, J. P. 1989. “Bells Theorem: A Guide to the Implications.” In
*Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem*, edited by J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin, 60–79. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar - Lange, M. 2001. “The Most Famous Equation.”
*The Journal of Philosophy*98(5):219–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lange, M. 2002.
*The Philosophy of Physics, Locality, Fields, Energy and Mass*. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar - Lewis, D. 1986.
*Philosophical Papers Volume II*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - Maudlin, T. 2002.
*Quantum Non-locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics*, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Newton, I. 1999.
*The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy*. Translated by I. B. Cohen and A. Whitman. California: University of California Press.Google Scholar - Poincaré, H. 1905.
*Science and Hypothesis*. London: Walter Scott Publishing.Google Scholar - Reichenbach, H. 1927.
*The Philosophy of Space and Time*. Translated by M. Reichenbach and J. Freund. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar - Reichenbach, H. 1969 [1920].
*The Theory of Relativity and a Priori Knowledge*. California: University of California Press. Translated by M. Reichenbach. Original German edition published in 1920.Google Scholar - Shimony, A. 1989. “Search for a Worldview Which Can Accommondate Our Knowledge of Microphysics.” In
*Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem*, edited by J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar - Teller, P. 1986. “Relational Holism and Quantum Mechanics.”
*British Journal for the Philosophy of Science*37:71–81.Google Scholar - Teller, P. 1989. “Relativity, Relational Holism, and the Bell Inequalities.” In
*Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem*, edited by J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin, 208–23. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar - Weyl, H. 1989.
*The Open World, Three Lectures on the Metaphysical Implications of Science*. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar - Winsberg, E., and A. Fine. 2003. “Quantum Life: Interaction, Entangelement, and Separation.”
*Journal of Philosophy*C(2):80–97.Google Scholar - Bohm, D. 1981.
*Wholeness and the Implicate Order*. Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar - Varzi, A. (Fall 2004). “Mereology.” In
*The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*, edited by E. N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/mereology/ - Stein, H. 1990. “From the Phenomena of Motions to the Forces of Nature”: Hypothesis or Deduction?
*PSA*(*1990*)*Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers*, 209–22.Google Scholar