Oliver Pooley

Relationalism rehabilitated? I: Classical mechanics

The implications for the substantivalist–relationalist controversy of Barbour and Bertottis successful implementation of a Machian approach to dynamics are investigated. It is argued that in the context of Newtonian mechanics, the Machian framework provides a genuinely relational interpretation of dynamics and that it is more explanatory than the conventional, substantival interpretation. In a companion paper (Pooley [2002a]), the viability of the Machian framework as an interpretation of relativistic physics is explored. 1 Introduction 2 Newton versus Leibniz 3 Absolute space versus an affine connection 4 Anti‐relationalist arguments 5 Rehabilitating relationalism 6 Dynamics on the relative configuration space 7 Intrinsic particle dynamics 8 Conclusion

Chapter 4: Minkowski Space-Time: A Glorious Non-Entity

It is argued that Minkowski space-time cannot serve as the deep structure within a “constructive” version of the special theory of relativity, contrary to widespread opinion in the philosophical community. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Jeeva Anandan.

Substantive General Covariance: Another Decade of Dispute

John Earman’s recent proposal that a substantive version of general covariance consists in the requirement that diffeomorphism invariance be a gauge symmetry is critically assessed. I argue that such a principle does not serve to differentiate general relativity from pre-relativistic theories. A model-theoretic characterization of two formulations of specially relativistic theories is suggested. Diffeomorphisms are symmetries of only one such style of formulation and, I argue, Earman’s proposal does not provide a reason to deny diffeomorphisms the status of gauge transformations relative to this formulation. Carlo Rovelli’s distinction between “passive” and “active” diffeomorphism invariance is also clarified.