Kent A. Peacock

Sherlock Holmes is reputed to have once remarked impatiently to his earnest but plodding colleague Watson, “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” In Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Tim Maudlin offers us a thorough and provocative argument based on this methodological principle. Maudlin insists that all explanations of the mysterious non-local correlations of quantum mechanics must by now be rejected except one: distant events in quantum systems really are “causally implicated” in a way that directly challenges the theory of relativity. Physicists and philosophers of science have made virtually every conceivable move to avoid this unsettling conclusion, including tinkering with the basic formalism or interpretation of the theory, and Arthur Fine’s oddly postmodernist recommendation that we should abandon as outmoded “essentialism” all hope of explaining the correlations. However, the threat to relativity just won’t go away. Maudlin argues that we should have paid better attention in the first place to J. S. Bell, who “concluded that violations of [his] inequality demonstrate that the world is not locally causal.... Instead of trying to deny these non-local influences, we should begin to study the role such influences must play in generating the phenomena”.

The purpose of this paper is to pick up the threads of a debate about the ontology of becoming in spacetime that was triggered by a provocative article published by Nicholas Maxwell in 1985. This debate is itself merely a recent episode in a long dialogue that goes back at least as far as the time of Parmenides and Heraclitus. Here is the question around which this debate centres: is change or becoming the distinguishing feature of the natural or physical world, as suggested obscurely by Heraclitus and argued at length by Aristotle? Or is our usual uncritical belief in the reality of change the product of some sort of perceptual illusion or intellectual error, as believed by Parmenides and a small host of recent authors such as Gödel and Julian Barbour? I won’t be able to solve the whole of this momentous problem here. However, I intend both to set aside a few unwarranted assumptions which have for a long time dogged our thinking about the puzzle of becoming, and to assemble some tools which should aid in finding a solution to it. In particular, I will argue that we can do much better than is usually supposed in identifying structures which can both “live” within Minkowski spacetime and represent objective becoming. I shall also discuss whether such structures would necessarily contradict the Principle.

The most pressing problems facing humanity today - over-population, energy shortages, climate change, soil erosion, species extinctions, the risk of epidemic disease, the threat of warfare that could destroy all the hard-won gains of civilization, and even the recent fibrillations of the stock market - are all ecological or have a large ecological component. in this volume philosophers turn their attention to understanding the science of ecology and its huge implications for the human project. To get the application of ecology to policy or other practical concerns right, humanity needs a clear and disinterested philosophical understanding of ecology which can help identify the practical lessons of science. Conversely, the urgent practical demands humanity faces today cannot help but direct scientific and philosophical investigation toward the basis of those ecological challenges that threaten human survival. This book will help to fuel the timely renaissance of interest in philosophy of ecology that is now occurring in the philosophical profession. Provides a bridge between philosophy and current scientific findings Covers theory and applications Encourages multi-disciplinary dialogue.

Not too many metaphysicians in these hypercritical times would dream of offering a theory of everything, but Storrs McCall, who modestly compares his new book to The Origin of Species, claims that his theory may accomplish nothing less than to "illuminate, perhaps even resolve" problems such as "the direction and flow of time; what causation consists of; the nature of scientific laws; the interpretation of quantum mechanics; objective probability; counterfactuals and related conditionals; the identity of individuals across possible worlds; essential properties... practical reason and decision, and the problem of free will". His attempt is breathtaking in its thoroughness and ingenuity.

I present a thought experiment in quantum mechanics and tease out some of its implications for the doctrine of “peaceful coexistence”, which, following Shimony, I take to be the proposition that quantum mechanics does not force us to revise or abandon the relativistic picture of causality. I criticize the standard arguments in favour of peaceful coexistence on the grounds that they are question-begging, and suggest that the breakdown of Lorentz-invariant relativity as a principle theory would be a natural development, given the general trend of physics in this century.