Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Absolute space exists as a real, immovable container independent of material bodies, as Newton argued in the Scholium to the Principia.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Absolute space is unobservable and causally inert—we only ever measure relative positions, making it metaphysically superfluous by Occam's razor.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Einstein's relativity successfully predicts all phenomena Newton explained without positing absolute space, showing it is not necessary for physics.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Rotational effects in Newton's bucket are explicable via inertial frames relative to distant masses (Mach's principle), requiring no absolute container.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Motion and acceleration require a reference frame; absolute space provides the unique, objective frame Newton's laws require to be determinate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Rotation exhibits genuine physical effects (centrifugal force in bucket experiment) only explicable if space itself is absolute, not relational.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without absolute space, the distinction between true motion and mere relative displacement becomes incoherent and unmeasurable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.