A five kilogram object has the determinable mass with the determinate mass of 5 kg. The determinate mass of 5 kg is a property that is one among many determinate properties that together have a mathematical structure isomorphic to a subset of real numbers from 0 to infinity (both inclusive, I expect). Something similar is true for electric charge, except now we can have negative values. Human-visible color, on the other hand, lies in a three-dimensional space.
I think one can have a Platonic version of this theory, on which all the possible determinate properties exist, and an Aristotelian one on which there are no unexemplified properties. There will be important differences, but that is not what I am interested in in this post.
I find it an attractive idea that spatial location works the same way. In a Newtonian setting the idea would be that for a point particle (for simplicity) to occupy a location is just to have a determinate position property, and the determinate position properties have the mathematical structure of a subset of three-dimensional Euclidean space.
But there is an interesting challenge when one tries to extend this to the setting of general relativity. The obvious extension of the story is that determinate instantaneous particle position properties have the mathematical structure of a subset of a four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold. But which manifold? Here is the problem: The nature of the manifold—i.e., its metric—is affected by the movements of the particles. If I step forward rather than back, the difference in gravitational fields affects which mathematical manifold our spacetime is isomorphic to. If determinate position properties are tied to a particular manifold, it means that the position of any massive object affects which manifold all objects are in and have always been in. In other words, the account seems to yield a story that is massively non-local.
(Indeed, the story may even involve backwards causation. Since the manifold is four-dimensional, by stepping forward rather than backwards I affect which four-dimensional manifold is exemplified, and hence which manifold particles were in. )
This is interesting: it suggests that, on a certain picture of the metaphysics of location, general relativity by itself yields non-locality.
1 comment:
Perhaps the varying metrics of the manifold are themselves part of the manifold. In that case, moving a mass just changes the local shape of the universe infinitesimally within that configuration space, corresponding to that change in the universe, rather than changing an overall metric.
Like the multiverse, and like the Platonic idea of all potential properties existing in some universe of forms, this requires the postulation of indefinitely large numbers of unverifiable entities.
Post a Comment