Spatial Experience and Special Relativity

Philosophical Studies 174 (9):2297-2313 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In recent work, David Chalmers argues that “Edenic shapes”—roughly, the shape properties phenomenally presented in spatial experience—are not instantiated in our world. His reasons come largely from the theory of Special Relativity. Although Edenic shapes might have been instantiated in a classical Newtonian world, he maintains that they could not be instantiated in a relativistic world like our own. In this essay, I defend realism about Edenic shape, the thesis that Edenic shapes are instantiated in our world, against Chalmers’s challenge from Special Relativity. I begin by clarifying the notion of an Edenic shape by reference to Chalmers’s notion of the “Edenic” content of perceptual experience. I then reconstruct Chalmers’s argument that Edenic shapes could not be instantiated in a relativistic world. His reasoning proceeds from two assumptions. The first is that the only shape properties instantiated in a relativistic world are those which somehow involve relations to frames of reference. This is thought to follow from the phenomenon of Lorentz contraction, a consequence of Special Relativity. The second assumption is that Edenic shapes do not involve relations to frames of reference. One reason to accept the second assumption is that it seems that Edenic shapes could be instantiated in a classical Newtonian world, where the notion of a frame-relative shape has no meaningful application. I then proceed to defend RES against Chalmers’s argument by arguing that Special Relativity, properly understood, provides no support for Chalmers’s first assumption. More generally, I argue, by way of a careful analysis of the geometric structure of Minkowski space–time and Galilean space–time Newtonian physics), that Edenic shapes are no less at home in a relativistic world than in a classical Newtonian world.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,497

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Geometry and special relativity.Geoffrey Joseph - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (3):425-438.
Spatial Directions, Anisotropy and Special Relativity.Marco Mamone Capria - 2011 - Foundations of Physics 41 (8):1375-1397.
Persistence and spacetime.Yuri Balashov - 2010 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Time in Classical and Relativistic Physics.Gordon Belot - 2013 - In Adrian Bardon & Heather Dyke (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Time. Chichester, UK: Blackwell. pp. 185-200.
Are probabilism and special relativity compatible?Nicholas Maxwell - 1988 - Philosophy of Science 55 (4):640-645.
An Argument for Shape Internalism.Jan Almäng - 2017 - Erkenntnis 82 (4):819-836.
Relativity, God, and Time.Thomas Greenlee - 2010 - In Melville Y. Stewart (ed.), Science and Religion in Dialogue. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 85--92.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-10-16

Downloads
115 (#156,646)

6 months
21 (#129,957)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Brian Cutter
University of Notre Dame

Citations of this work

Perceptual illusionism.Brian Cutter - 2021 - Analytic Philosophy 62 (4):396-417.
Normative concepts and the return to Eden.Preston J. Werner - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179 (7):2259-2283.

Add more citations

References found in this work

On the Plurality of Worlds.David K. Lewis - 1986 - Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and other Indexicals.David Kaplan - 1989 - In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press. pp. 481-563.
Consciousness and Experience.William G. Lycan - 1996 - Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

View all 47 references / Add more references