Absolutist- Space is euclidian everywhere (everywhere the same), so nothing will act any differently, no matter where you put it.
Positivist (logical positivism)- without observable evidence, what we talk about, i.e. bsolute space, is meaningless. (If we can’t verify terminology, it is meaningless, so the rationalist says that the absolutist is not positivist as they are appealing to non-observable entities, making them meaningless.
However, positivism is often rejected, because the actual positivist principle itself cannot be verified! And we should hope that we CAN use merely theoretical ideas, especially in subjects such as metaphysics and theoretical physics, without which, the subjects, however useful they are, would collapse.
Modal Relationism- based on mere possibilities. Non-committing. Space possibly exists even though no material object is present, because this is what is in accordance with nature.
………………………….
Principle of sufficient reason (PSR)- nothing should happen without sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise. But is there a sufficient reason for this proposition to be true? (parallell attack to the positivism attack).
If we do accept this principle, we have to acknowledge that the universe is where it is for no reason. This is a contradiction, and Leibniz thinks it better to drop absolute space in favour for this ‘intuitive’ principle of PSR.
In response to this, we could either deny PSR, or we could redefine absolute space, so that it fits in with PSR. i.e. instead of saying that space has the same properties everywhere, we could say that it does not, thereby giving reason for the universe to be where it is.
……………………………………………….
Clarke says that anything finite is movable. If this is not true, thenthis logically implies that all of space is occupied by material objects, as this would be the only way for a finite object to be prevented from being moved.
Leibniz says that the objects are not moving THROUGH space, simply the relation between objects is changing, so there is no need for Clarke’s argumet here. If absolutism were true, Clarke’s argument would be so, but as it is not, Clarke’s argument is null and void and we can explain everything in terms of relations between objects (so Leibniz thinks).
……………………………………….
Against PSR
PSR seems to lead to an infinite regress. (What’s the problem with this?). We could say that every effect has a causal event apart from one thing that is not an ‘event’, that is to say ‘God’ (Cite, Lock).
The Absolutist has to say why we would be in P1 rather than P2. Reason? Because Yesterday we were in P1, and there has been no reason for us to have moved.
In other words, if the relationist doesn’t defeat the problem of an infinite regress, then the absolutist doesn’t either.
……………………………………………..
Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles
If things are the same in every way, they are the same things but with different names.
An Absolutist would say that PII may be true, but in the examples given, what differes is the PLACES, so the two universes are actually discernible.
Or we could attack PII using the sphere example. If we split a sphere in half, then both halves are the same, thereby making them the same thing. If we keep doing this, eventually the sphere will be reduced to a dot, making the theory of PII have absurd consequences.
Maybe PII is of no real use. It is not positivist, and cannot be realised in a material world as 2 exactly similar objects cannot occupy the same space. Can we even conceive of this?
