more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
The obvious problem with the simple relational view of space and time is that it fails to account for the full range of spatio-temporal possibility. There seem to be times and places where objects and events could be, but are not.
Gist of Idea
The relational view of space-time doesn't cover times and places where things could be
Source
Alexander Bird (Nature's Metaphysics [2007], 7.3.2)
Book Ref
Bird,Alexander: 'Nature's Metaphysics' [OUP 2007], p.163
A Reaction
This view seems strongly supported by intuition. I certainly don't accept the views of physicists and cosmologists on the subject, because they seem to approach the whole thing too instrumentally.
| 13228 | There is no time without movement [Aristotle] |
| 20920 | If there were many cosmoses, each would have its own time, giving many times [Aristotle] |
| 1903 | If motion and rest are abolished, so is time [Sext.Empiricus] |
| 19384 | Space and time are the order of all possibilities, and don't just relate to what is actual [Leibniz] |
| 2100 | Space and time are purely relative [Leibniz] |
| 13181 | Time is the order of inconsistent possibilities [Leibniz] |
| 4189 | Time may be defined as the possibility of mutually exclusive conditions of the same thing [Schopenhauer] |
| 2608 | For McTaggart time is seen either as fixed, or as relative to events [McTaggart, by Ayer] |
| 2949 | We have the confused idea that time is a process of change [Lockwood] |
| 9504 | The relational view of space-time doesn't cover times and places where things could be [Bird] |