In chapter six of Philosophy of Science, Okasha introduced the Newton v. Leibniz debate. Although there were several avenues, I will focus on just one, the Space/Time debate.
Newton had an absolutist concept of space, meaning “space has an absolute existence over and above spatial relations between objects.” (p. 95). The implication here is that space existed before any material objects (e.g. a cereal box before it is filled with cereal). Leibniz, however, did not agree with Newton’s theory. According to Leibniz, “space consists simply of the totality of spatial relations between material objects (above, below, to the left, etc.)” (p. 96). Being a relationist, Leibniz proposed that every material object is in relation to something else, thus space did not exist until material objects did. Without objects there is no space (e.g. a contract between two parties, if one party backs out there simply is no contract, it ceases to exist).
This brings us into the space/time debate. According to Newtonian SpaceTime, space and time just always is, no beginning and no end, thus they existed before the universe was created. So supporters of the Big Bang theory point to Newtonian theory as a proponent for their claims. There could have been a point in time where everything was concentrated in one tiny point, it exploded and thus the Big Bang creating the universe, but Space and Time were already in existence because we can trace it back. This defines Space and Time as more an idea and not a literal substance. The opposing argument proposed by Leibniz states in order for the structure of Space and Time to exists, there has to be a relation between material objects. Here, Space/Time are interrelated and viewed as a sort of fabric. The relation between objects causes that fabric to curve. There further back we go in viewing the creation of the universe, we see as objects get closer and closer together, the fabric curves more and more. Eventually as we recede back to the moment of the Big Bang, we see the curve in the fabric is so great is goes on for infinity, which does not make sense. There cannot be a curve to infinity and there still be a SpaceTime fabric that satisfies classical General Relativity equations mathematically. Thus showing Space and Time did not exists before the universe was created.
I will admit, most of this chapter was well above my head but I feel after some more digging through academic journals, I was able to grasp the basic outline of the Newton/Leibniz debate.
Space IS mind-blowing, as Neil deGrasse Tyson likes to point out. The cereal-box analogy doesn't really help, since we want to know what's on the other side of the cardboard. But if space is expanding indefinitely there mustn't be any "other side"... but Leibniz' view leads to some bizarre notions in metaphysics - monads etc. - so I prefer to wait on better information. We probably won't know how to nail down the correct theory of space/time until we actually spend more time out in space. We must boldly go... (have you heard about the Blue Mars initiative at MTSU?)
ReplyDeleteThe great cosmological question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is also born of curiosity about the ultimate nature of space. Even empty space is still "something," as the micro-pin prick of the Big Bang's primordial antecedent must have been. Why not Nothing? But, as we head into the season of Thanksgiving, I for one am grateful for all the unexplained somethings we don't yet understand.