Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-lrvh5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T14:14:33.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Could the Laws of Nature Change?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Marc Lange
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After reviewing several failed arguments that laws cannot change, I use the laws’ special relation to counterfactuals to show how temporary laws would have to differ from eternal but time-dependent laws. Then I argue that temporary laws are impossible and that neither Lewis's nor Armstrong's analyses of law nicely accounts for the laws’ immutability.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 69 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

Many thanks to John Roberts and John Carroll for valuable comments on earlier drafts, as well as to several anonymous referees for their good suggestions.

References

Airy, G. B. (1830), “On Certain Conditions under Which a Perpetual Motion Is Possible”, On Certain Conditions under Which a Perpetual Motion Is Possible 3:369–372.Google Scholar
Armstrong, David (1983), What Is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, David (1997), A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebee, Helen (2000), “The Non-governing Conception of Laws of Nature”, The Non-governing Conception of Laws of Nature 61:571–593.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan (1984), “Counterfactuals and Temporal Direction”, Counterfactuals and Temporal Direction 93:57–91.Google Scholar
Carroll, John (1994), Laws of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick (1946), “The Contrary-to-Fact Conditional”, The Contrary-to-Fact Conditional 55:289–307.Google Scholar
Comins, Neil F. (1993), What If the Moon Didn’t Exist? Voyages to Earths That Might Have Been. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Davies, Paul (1995), “Algorithmic Compressibility, Fundamental and Phenomenological Laws”, in Weinert, Friedel (ed.), Laws of Nature: Essays on the Philosophical, Scientific, and Historical Dimensions. Berlin: de Gruyter, 248–267.Google Scholar
Descartes, Rene (2000), Philosophical Essays and Correspondence. Edited by Roger Ariew. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Ellis, Brian (2001), Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Brian (2005), “Marc Lange on Essentialism”, Marc Lange on Essentialism 83:75–79.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald (1995), “The Skeptical Perspective: Science without Laws of Nature”, in Weinert, Friedel (ed.), Laws of Nature: Essays on the Philosophical, Scientific, and Historical Dimensions. Berlin: de Gruyter, 120–138.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson (1983), Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Handfield, Toby (2005), “Lange on Essentialism, Counterfactuals, and Explanation”, Lange on Essentialism, Counterfactuals, and Explanation 83:81–85.Google Scholar
Horwich, Paul (1987), Asymmetries in Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank (1977), “A Causal Theory of Counterfactuals”, A Causal Theory of Counterfactuals 55:3–21.Google Scholar
Lange, Marc (2000), Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lange, Marc (2004), “A Note on Scientific Essentialism, Laws of Nature, and Counterfactual Conditionals”, A Note on Scientific Essentialism, Laws of Nature, and Counterfactual Conditionals 82:227–241.Google Scholar
Lange, Marc (2005), “A Reply to Ellis and to Handfield on Essentialism, Laws, and Counterfactuals”, A Reply to Ellis and to Handfield on Essentialism, Laws, and Counterfactuals 83:581–588.Google Scholar
Lange, Marc (2007), “Laws and Meta-laws of Nature”, Laws and Meta-laws of Nature 15:21–36.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1973), Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1986), “A Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance”, in Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 83–132.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1999), “Humean Supervenience Debugged”, in Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 224–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linde, Andrei (1994), “The Self-Reproducing, Inflationary Universe”, The Self-Reproducing, Inflationary Universe 271 (November): 48–55.Google Scholar
Mackie, John L. (1962), “Counterfactuals and Causal Laws”, in Butler, R. (ed.), Analytic Philosophy. New York: Barnes & Noble, 66–80.Google Scholar
Mellor, David Hugh (1991), Matters of Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nambu, Yoichiro (1985), “Directions in Particle Physics”, Progress in Theoretical Physics (Supplement) 85:104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poincaré, Henri (1963), “The Evolution of Laws”, in Mathematics and Science: Last Essays. New York: Dover, 1–14.Google Scholar
Pollock, John (1976), Subjunctive Reasoning. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans (1954), Nomological Statements and Admissible Operations. Dordrecht: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Schweber, Silvan S. (1997), “The Metaphysics of Science at the End of a Heroic Age”, in Cohen, Robert S., Horne, Michael, and Stachel, John (eds.), Experimental Metaphysics, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 193. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 171–198.Google Scholar
Seelau, Eric P., et al. (1995), “Counterfactual Constraints”, in Roese, Neil J. and Olson, James M. (eds.), What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 57–80.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, Sydney (1998), “Causal and Metaphysical Necessity”, Causal and Metaphysical Necessity 79:59–77.Google Scholar
Sider, Theodore (2003), “Reductive Theories of Modality”, in Loux, Michael J. and Zimmerman, Dean W. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 180–208.Google Scholar
Spinoza, Benedict de (1951), Theological-Political Treatise. Translated by Elwes, R. H. M.. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Stöltzner, Michael (1995), “Levels of Physical Theories”, in DePauli-Schimanovich, Werner, Köhler, Eckehart, and Stadler, Friedrich (eds.), The Foundational Debate, Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, vol. 3. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. (1952), An Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Swartz, Norman (1985), The Concept of Physical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thirring, Walter (1995), “Do the Laws of Nature Evolve?”, in Murphy, Michael P. and O’Neill, Luke A. J. (eds.), What Is Life? The Next Fifty Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas (1989), Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, Steven (1977), The First Three Minutes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar