Nature's Metaphysics
Abstract
Abstract What are the laws of nature, and what explains their existence? This book develops the proposal that the laws of nature are grounded in the essences of properties. It is argued that fundamental natural properties have dispositional essences — they are potencies (pure powers). After explaining this proposal, the book goes on to show how this accounts for the existence of the laws of nature. A distinctive feature of this account is that it ensures that the laws of nature are metaphysically necessary. This account has advantages over the regularity and nomic necessitation accounts associated with Lewis and Armstrong, while the dispositional essentialist view of properties has corresponding advantages over the categoricalist view of properties, according to which properties are quidditistic and do not have qualitative essences, merely primitive identity and difference. The relationship between potencies and modality, and also intentionality is explored. Other potential criticisms are raised and the view defended against them. For example it is claimed that if all properties are potencies, then a vicious regress ensues; it is shown that this does not follow. Geometrical and other ‘structural’ properties are raised as counterexamples, being properties that seem categorical; it is argued that this is the case only if one takes a particular view of the role of spacetime in physical theories. It is held that laws are metaphysically contingent whereas dispositional essentialism makes them necessary; it is argued that the contingency of laws is an illusion. An account of laws is developed in the face of Mumford's claim that neither dispositional essentialism nor science has need of laws.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Bird (2007) lists four problems for accounts that analyze laws in terms of dispositions: fundamental constants, conservation laws and symmetry principles, principles of least action, and multiple laws relating distinct properties.
“Bird (2007) lists four problems (p.211): (1) fundamental constants, (2) conservation laws and symmetry principles, (3) principles of least action, and (4) multiple laws relating distinct properties.”
From Governing Without A Fundamental Direction of Time: Minimal Primitivism about Laws of Nature (2022) · cites this paper as Bird (2007)
Property-based theories such as dispositionalism and natural kind essentialism struggle to explain sophisticated regularities or laws, including conservation laws, retention laws, functional laws, idealized laws, and lawlike boundary conditions such as the Past Hypothesis.
“it has been argued: that dispositionalists and natural kind essentialists struggle to explain conservation laws; 23 that dispositionalists struggle to explain retention laws (namely, the regularity that things are disposed to retain their dispositions over time in the absence of interferences); 24 and that all property-based accounts struggle to explain functional laws, 25 idealized laws, 26 and”
From The nomological argument for the existence of God (2022) · cites this paper as Bird (2007, 213-214)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Perspectivism, inconsistent models, and contrastive explanation
Chakravartty, A. (2010) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A · doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.10.007 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Nomothetic Explanation and Humeanism about Laws of Nature
Bhogal, H. (2020) · Oxford Studies in Metaphysics Volume 12 · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192893314.003.0006 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Governing Without A Fundamental Direction of Time: Minimal Primitivism about Laws of Nature
Chen, E. K., & Goldstein, S. (2022) · Jerusalem Studies in Philosophy and History of Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-96775-8_2 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Did the universe design itself?
Goff, P. (2019) · International Journal for Philosophy of Religion · doi:10.1007/s11153-018-9692-z · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Does the counterfactual theory of explanation apply to non-causal explanations in metaphysics?
Reutlinger, A. (2017) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-016-0155-z · Cited by 45 · see citing works
The nomological argument for the existence of God
Hildebrand, T., & Metcalf, T. (2022) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12364 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Shoring up divine simplicity against modal collapse: a powers account
LENOW, J. E. (2021) · Religious Studies · doi:10.1017/s0034412518000859 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bird, A.
- Corresponding author
- Bird, Alexander
- ORCID
- Bird, Alexander
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2007-06-01
- OpenAlex
- W2504615297
- Cited by
- 961
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 66 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 149 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 25
- FWCI
- 15.87
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/D503833/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- laws of nature, metaphysics of law, dispositional essentialism, potency, dispositional properties, categorical properties, regularity theory, metaphysical necessity, modality, intentionality, structural properties, spacetime, Lewis Mumford, Lewis, Armstrong
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review