It's one thing to rule them all and another thing to bind them.

In this paper we offer a response to one argument in favour of Priority Monism, what Jonathan Schaffer calls the nomic argument for monism. We proceed in three stages. We begin by introducing Jonathan Schaffer's Priority Monism and the nomic argument for that view. We then consider a response to the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Synthese Vol. 198; no. 1; pp. 105 - 116
Main Authors: Tallant, Jonathan, Baron, Sam
Format: Article
Published: Springer Nature Jan2021
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=151915695&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 151915695
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00397857
        4LI
      jtl: Synthese
      issn: 00397857
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jan2021
      vid: 198
      iid: 1
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        151915695
        10.1007/s11229-018-01983-z
      ppf: 105
      ppct: 11
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 380KB
      tig:
        atl: It's one thing to rule them all and another thing to bind them.
      aug:
        au:
          Tallant, Jonathan
          Baron, Sam
        affil:
          Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
          Department of Philosophy, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
      su:
        General relativity (Physics)
        Monism
        Argument
      sug:
        subj:
          General relativity (Physics)
          Monism
          Argument
      keyword:
        General relativity
        Holism
        Laws of nature
        Quantum mechanics
      ab: In this paper we offer a response to one argument in favour of Priority Monism, what Jonathan Schaffer calls the nomic argument for monism. We proceed in three stages. We begin by introducing Jonathan Schaffer's Priority Monism and the nomic argument for that view. We then consider a response to the nomic argument that we presented in an earlier paper (Baron and Tallant in Philos Phenomenol Res 93:583–606, 2016). We show that this argument suffers from a flaw. We then go on to offer a different response to the nomic argument. The core idea is that the current laws of physics are not integrated in the manner that Schaffer requires to get the nomic argument for monism off the ground.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Synthese
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2021
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N