Home Laws, Dispositions, Memory: Three Hypotheses on the Order of the World
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Laws, Dispositions, Memory: Three Hypotheses on the Order of the World

  • Joël Dolbeault ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: March 19, 2021

Abstract

The more science progresses, the more it is evident that the physical world presents regularities. This raises a metaphysical problem: why is the world so ordered? In the first part of the article, I attempt to clarify this problem and justify its relevance. In the following three parts, I analyze three hypotheses already formulated in philosophy in response to this problem: the hypothesis that the order of the world is explained 1) by laws of nature, 2) by dispositions of the fundamental physical entities, 3) or by a memory immanent to matter (a hypothesis developed by Peirce, Bergson and James). The third hypothesis may seem surprising. However, it can be shown that the three hypotheses have a psychomorphic dimension in the sense that they give to nature properties analogous to those of mind. In addition, this third hypothesis presents several interesting arguments.


Corresponding author: Joël Dolbeault, University of Lille-III, Domaine universitaire du Pont de Bois, 59650Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France, E-mail:

References

Armstrong, D. 1983. What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316499030Search in Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. 1993. “The Identification Problem and the Inference Problem.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (2): 421–2.10.2307/2107779Search in Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. 1997. A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511583308Search in Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. 2005. “Four Disputes about Properties.” Synthese 144 (3): 309–20.10.1007/s11229-005-5852-7Search in Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. 2012. “Defending Categoricalism.” In Properties, Powers and Structures, edited by A. Bird, B., and H. Sankey, 27–33. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Barrow, J. 2007. New Theories of Everything. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780192807212.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Beebee, H. 2000. “The Non-governing Conception of Laws of Nature.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (3): 571–94.10.2307/j.ctt5vkh1c.16Search in Google Scholar

Bergson, H. 1991. Matter and Memory. New York: Zone Books.Search in Google Scholar

Bergson, H. 1998. Creative Evolution. New York: Dover.Search in Google Scholar

Bergson, H. 1965. Duration and Simultaneity. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.Search in Google Scholar

Bergson, H. 2007. The Creative Mind. New York: Dover.Search in Google Scholar

Bird, A. 2007. Nature’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199227013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Bird, A. 2012. “Monistic Dispositional Essentialism.” In Properties, Powers and Structures, edited by A. Bird, B., and H. Sankey, 35–41. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203124482-8Search in Google Scholar

Dirac, P. 1930. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dretske, F. 1977. “Laws of Nature.” Philosophy of Science 44 (2): 248–68.10.2307/j.ctt5vkh1c.5Search in Google Scholar

Earman, J. 1993. “In Defense of Laws: Reflections on Bas Van Fraassen’s Laws and Symmetry.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (2): 413–9.10.2307/2107778Search in Google Scholar

Einstein, A. 1987. Letters to Solovine. New York: Philosophical Library.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, B. 2001. Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, B. 2012. “The Categorical Dimensions of the Causal Powers.” In Properties, Powers and Structures, edited by A. Bird, B., and H. Sankey, 11–26. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Greene, B. 2000. The Elegant Universe. London: Vintage.Search in Google Scholar

Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. London: Bantam Press.10.1063/1.2811637Search in Google Scholar

Heil, J. 2005. “Dispositions.” Synthese 144 (3): 343–56.10.1007/s11229-005-5864-3Search in Google Scholar

James, W. 1909/1977. A Pluralistic Universe. In The Works of William James, edited by F. Burkhardt, F. Bowers, and I. Skrupskelis. Cambridge: Havard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

James, W. 1909/1979. Some Problems of Philosophy. In The Works of William James, edited by F. Burkhardt, F. Bowers, and I. Skrupskelis. Cambridge: Havard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kant, I. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804649Search in Google Scholar

Kant, I. 2002. Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Landau, L., and E. Lifshitz. 1976. Mechanics, 3rd ed. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Laughlin, R. 2005. A Different Universe. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1983. “New Work for a Theory of Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61 (4): 343–77.10.1017/CBO9780511625343.002Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1986. Philosophical Papers II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1994. “Humean Supervenience Debugged.” Mind 103 (412): 473–90.10.1017/CBO9780511625343.016Search in Google Scholar

Loewer, B. 1996. “Humean Supervenience.” Philosophical Topics 24 (1): 101–27.10.2307/j.ctt5vkh1c.14Search in Google Scholar

Lowe, J. 2006. The Four-Category Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199254397.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Martin, C. 1997. “On The Need for Properties: The Road To Pythagoreanism and Back.” Synthese 112 (2): 193–231.10.1023/A:1004983524345Search in Google Scholar

Maudlin, T. 2007. The Metaphysics within Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199218219.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

McKitrick, J. 2013. “How to Activate a Power.” In Metaphysics and Science (123–137), edited by S. Mumford, and M. Tugby. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199674527.003.0006Search in Google Scholar

Mellor, D. 2000. “The Semantics and Ontology of Dispositions.” Mind 109 (436): 757–80.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645084.003.0007Search in Google Scholar

Molnar, G. 2003. Powers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mumford, S. 1998. Dispositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, C. 1891/1935. “The Architecture of Theories.” In Collected Papers, Vol. VI, edited by C. Hartshorne, and P. Weiss, 6.7–6.34. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4324/9781315823126-8Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, C. 1892a/1935. “The Law of Mind.” In Collected Papers, Vol. VI, edited by C. Hartshorne, and P. Weiss, 6.102–6.163. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.5840/monist18922434Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, C. 1892b/1935. “Man’s Glassy Essence.” In Collected Papers, Vol. VI, edited by C. Hartshorne, and P. Weiss, 6.238–6.271. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4324/9781315823126-11Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, C. 1898/1958. “Habit.” In Collected Papers, Vol. VII, edited by A. W. Burks, 7.468–7.523. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, C. 1903/1934. “Lectures on Pragmatism.” In Collected Papers, Vol. V, edited by C. Hartshorne, and P. Weiss, 5.14–5.212. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Penrose, R. 1997. The Large, the Small and the Human Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Planck, M. 1949. Scientific Autobiography. New York: Philosophical Library.Search in Google Scholar

Prior, E. 1982. “The Dispositional/Categorical Distinction.” Analysis 42 (2): 93–6.10.1093/analys/42.2.93Search in Google Scholar

Rees, M. 2000. Just Six Numbers. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Schaffer, J. 2008. “Causation and Laws of Nature: Reductionism.” In Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics, edited by J. Hawthorne, T. Sider, and D. Zimmerman, 82–107. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Shoemaker, S. 1980. “Causality and Properties.” In Time and Cause, edited by P. van Inwagen, 109–35. London: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-017-3528-5_7Search in Google Scholar

Shoemaker, S. 1998. “Causal and Metaphysical Necessity.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79 (1): 59‒77.10.1111/1468-0114.00050Search in Google Scholar

Smolin, L. 2013. Time Reborn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Search in Google Scholar

Swinburne, R. 1980. “Properties, Causation, and Projectibility: Reply to Shoemaker.” In Applications of Inductive Logic, edited by L. Cohen, and M. Hesse, 313–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tooley, M. 1977. “The Nature of Laws.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (4): 667–98.10.2307/j.ctt5vkh1c.6Search in Google Scholar

Van Fraassen, B. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198248601.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Van Fraassen, B. 1993. “Armstrong, Cartwright, and Earman on Laws and Symmetry.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (2): 431–44.10.2307/2107781Search in Google Scholar

Weinberg, S. 1992. Dreams of a Final Theory. New York: Pantheon Books.Search in Google Scholar

Wichmann, E. 1971. Quantum Physics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book.Search in Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. 1979. Wittgenstein’s Lectures: Cambridge, 1932–19355. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. 1997. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-03-19
Published in Print: 2021-04-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 12.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/mp-2020-0010/html
Scroll to top button