Abstract
I propose a theory of space with infinitesimal regions called smooth infinitesimal geometry (SIG) based on certain algebraic objects (i.e., rings), which regiments a mode of reasoning heuristically used by geometricists and physicists (e.g., circle is composed of infinitely many straight lines). I argue that SIG has the following utilities. (1) It provides a simple metaphysics of vector fields and tangent space that are otherwise perplexing. A tangent space can be considered an infinitesimal region of space. (2) It generalizes a standard implementation of spacetime algebraicism (according to which physical fields exist fundamentally without an underlying manifold) called Einstein algebras. (3) It solves the long-standing problem of interpreting smooth infinitesimal analysis (SIA) realistically, an alternative foundation of spacetime theories to real analysis (Lawvere Cahiers de Topologie et Géométrie Différentielle Catégoriques, 21(4), 277–392, 1980). SIA is formulated in intuitionistic logic and is thought to have no classical reformulations (Hellman Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35, 621–651, 2006). Against this, I argue that SIG is (part of) such a reformulation. But SIG has an unorthodox mereology, in which the principle of supplementation fails.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Arntzenius, F. (2000). Are there really instantaneous velocities? The Monist, 83(2), 187–208.
Arntzenius, F., & Cian, D. (2012). Calculus as Geometry. In Space, Time, and Stuff. Oxford University Press, pp. 213–279.
Bain, J. (2003). Einstein algebras and the hole argument. Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 1073–1085.
Bell, J. (2008). A Primer of Infinitesimal Analysis (2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, J. (2017). Continuity And Infinitesimals, The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (2017 Summer Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed), {https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/continuity/}.
Boyer, C. (1959). The History of the Calculus and its Conceptual Development, New York: Dover.
Bunge, M., Gago, F., & San Luis, A. (2018). Synthetic Differential Topology (London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Busse, R. (2009). Humean supervenience, vectorial fields, and the spinning sphere. Dialectica, 63(4), 449–489.
Butterfield, J. (2006). Against Pointillisme about Mechanics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57(4), 709–753.
Cantor, G. (1887). Mitteilungen zur Lehre vom Transfiniten. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosopische Kritik, 91, 81–125.
Chen, L. (2019). Do infinitesimal simple parts solve zeno’s paradox of measure?. Synthese, 198, 4441–4456.
Chen, L. (2020). Infinitesimal gunk. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 49, 981–1004.
Chen, L., & Fritz, T. (2021). An algebraic approach to physical fields. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 89, 188–201.
Earman, J., & Norton, J. (1987). What price spacetime substantivalism? the hole story. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 38, 515–525.
Ehrlich, P. (2006). The Rise of non-Archimedean Mathematics and the Roots of a Misconception i: The Emergence of non-Archimedean Systems of Magnitudes. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 60(1), 1–121.
Feferman, S. (1985). A Theory of Variable Types. Revista Columbiana de Matematicas, XIX, 95–105.
Forrest, P. (2003). Nonclassical mereology and its application to sets. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 43(2), 79–94.
Forrest, P. (2007). Mereological summation and the question of unique fusion. Analysis, 56(3), 127–131.
Geroch, R. (1972). Einstein algebras. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 26(4), 271–275.
Giordano, P. (2010). The ring of fermat reals. Advances in Mathematics, 225, 2050–2075.
Heller, M., & Król, J. (2016). Synthetic Approach to the Singularity Problem. arXiv:1607.08264 [gr-qc].
Heller, M., & Sasin, W. (1999). Noncommutative Unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 38, 1619–1642.
Hellman, G. (2006). Mathematical pluralism: the case of smooth infinitesimal analysis. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35, 621–651.
Kock, A. (2006). Synthetic Differential Geometry (2Nd Edition), Cambridge University Press (First Edition published in 1981).
Lawvere, F.W. (1980). Toward the description in a smooth topos of the dynamically possible motions and deformations of a continuous body. Cahiers de Topologie et Gé,ométrie Différentielle Catégoriques, 21(4), 277–392.
Mac Lane, S., & Moerdijk, I. (1992). Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: a first introduction to topos. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Mayberry, J. (2000). Review. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 339–345.
Menon, T. (2019). Algebraic fields and the dynamical approach to physical geometry. In Philos. Sci. 86.5, pp. 1273–1283.
Moerdijk, I., & Reyes, G. (1991). Models for Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Morin, D. (2008). Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norton, J.D. (2008). Why Constructive Relativity Fails?. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(4), 821–834.
Reeder, P. (2015). Zeno’s arrow and the infinitesimal calculus. Synthese, 192, 1315–1335.
Robinson, A. (1966). Non-Standard Analysis. North-Holland: Amsterdam.
Rosenstock, S., Barrett, T., & Weatherall, J. (2015). On einstein algebras and relativistic spacetimes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 52, 309–315.
Ruetsche, L. (2011). Interpreting Quantum Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russell, B. (1903). The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rynasiewicz, R. (1992). Rings, holes, and substantivalism: on the program of leibniz algebras. Philosophy of Science, 59(4), 572–589.
Shulman, M. (2006). Synthetic Differential Geometry. Retrieved from: http://home.sandiego.edu/shulman/papers/sdg-pizza-seminar.pdf.
Thomson, J. (1998). The statue and the clay. Noû,s, 32(2), 149–173.
Tooley, M. (1988). In defense of the existence of states of motion. Philosophical Topics, 16(1), 225–254.
Varzi, A. (2019). Mereology, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/mereology/.
Van Fraassen, C.B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walter, L. (2017). Are The Statue and The Clay Mutual Parts?”Noûs: 23-50.
Weatherson, B. (2006). The asymmetric magnets problem. Philosophical Perspectives, 20(1), 479–492.
Acknowledgments
I want to give special thanks to Jeffrey Russell for the essential discussions and guidance early on and to Tobias Fritz for his very generous technical help, without which the current paper would be impossible. I thank Phillip Bricker and Cian Dorr for their helpful feedback on the early drafts of the paper. Many thanks to the anonymous referee of Journal of Philosophical Logic for their very helpful comments, which have substantially improved the exposition of the paper, among other things. Finally, I would like to thank all the participants at my talks based on various versions of the paper for their stimulating questions and comments, whose names are too numerous to list.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, L. Smooth Infinitesimals in the Metaphysical Foundation of Spacetime Theories. J Philos Logic 51, 857–877 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-022-09653-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-022-09653-9