Advertisement

Physical Systems and Physical Thought

  • Ori BelkindEmail author
Chapter
  • 631 Downloads
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 264)

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 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bell, J. S. 1987. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Belousek, D. 2003. “Non-separability, Non-supervenience, and Quantum Ontology.” Philosophy of Science 70:791–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnap, R. 1922. Der Raum. Berlin: Reuther and Reichard.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. French, S. 1989. “Individuality, Supervenience and Bell’s Theorem.” Philosophical Studies 55: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedman, M. 1983. Foundations of Space-time Theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  7. Friedman, M. 1999. Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Healey, R. 1991. “Holism and Nonseparability.” Journal of Philosophy 88(8):393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Howard, D. 1985. “Einstein on Locality and Separability.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16(3):171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Lange, M. 2001. “The Most Famous Equation.” The Journal of Philosophy 98(5):219–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lange, M. 2002. The Philosophy of Physics, Locality, Fields, Energy and Mass. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. 1986. Philosophical Papers Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Maudlin, T. 2002. Quantum Non-locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Poincaré, H. 1905. Science and Hypothesis. London: Walter Scott Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Reichenbach, H. 1927. The Philosophy of Space and Time. Translated by M. Reichenbach and J. Freund. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Teller, P. 1986. “Relational Holism and Quantum Mechanics.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37:71–81.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Weyl, H. 1989. The Open World, Three Lectures on the Metaphysical Implications of Science. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
  25. Winsberg, E., and A. Fine. 2003. “Quantum Life: Interaction, Entangelement, and Separation.” Journal of Philosophy C(2):80–97.Google Scholar
  26. Bohm, D. 1981. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  27. Varzi, A. (Fall 2004). “Mereology.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/mereology/
  28. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of RichmondRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations