This paper forms part of a wider campaign: to deny pointillisme. That is the doctrine that a physical theory’s fundamental quantities are defined at points of space or of spacetime, and represent intrinsic properties of such points or point-sized objects located there; so that properties of spatial or spatiotemporal regions and their material contents are determined by the point-by-point facts. Elsewhere, I argued against pointillisme about chrono-geometry, and about velocity in classical mechanics. In both cases, attention focussed on temporal extrinsicality: i.e. on what an ascription of a property implies about other times. Therefore, I also discussed the metaphysical debate whether persistence should be understood as endurance or perdurance. In this paper, I focus instead on spatial extrinsicality: i.e. on what an ascrip- tion of a property implies about other places. The main idea will be that the classical mechanics of continuous media (solids or fluids) involves a good deal of spatial extrinsicality—which seems not to have been noticed by philosophers, even those who have no inclination to pointillisme. I begin by describing my wider campaign. Then I present some elementary aspects of stress, strain and elasticity—emphasising the kinds of spatial extrin- sicality they each involve. I conduct the discussion entirely in the context of “Newtonian” ideas about space and time. But my arguments carry over to relativistic physics.
CITATION STYLE
Butterfield, J. (2011). Against Pointillisme: A Call to Arms. In Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation (pp. 347–365). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1180-8_24
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.