The Reign of Relativity: Philosophy in Physics 1915-1925 (Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Science) (Paperback)

by Thomas Ryckman (Author) "For a brief decade in the early part of the 20th century, an observer with a passing interest in the scene may well have forecast..." (more)
Key Phrases: gauging equation, pure infinitesimal geometry, affine field theory, Das Kontinuum, Hermann Weyl, Logical Investigations (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"This is (or should be) a major "paradigm shift" in contemporary philosophy of science and epistemology. Ryckman masterfully blends usually incommensurable skills in mathematics (differential geometry), physics(gravitational and electrodynamic theory), Husserlian phenomenology, logical empiricism, and neo-Kantianism to rehabilitate post-1916 Einstein discourse on the phiolosophy and strategy of general relativity and unified field theory. Highly recommended."--CHOICE
"Ryckman shows that the philosophical significance of the general theory of relativity was by no means confined to its appropriation by logical empiricism, but extended far wider to embrace a variety of philosophical approaches under the general rubric of transcendental idealism. Most importantly, perhaps, Einstein's theory was subject to a profound effort at interpretation and development by the philosophically minded mathematician Hermann Weyl, working under the explicit inspiration of the transcendental phenomenological idealism of Edmund Husserl. Ryckman's book thus points in radically new directions for understanding twentieth century philosophy more generally, and, in particular, the much vexed question of the relationship between analytic and continental philosophical traditions."--Michael Friedman, Frederick P. Rehmus Family Professor of Humanities, Stanford University
"The Reign of Relativity accomplishes a giant leap forward in understanding where we are in philosophy today. Ryckman studies the profound ways in which the development of twentieth century philosophy (logical empiricism, transcendental phenomenology, and neo-Kantianism) became entangled with the development of general relativity. He locates both an influential series of false steps (especially concerning realism, objectivity and the a priori) and also a corrective, drawing the latter from the writings of Cassirer, Eddington and Weyl. No one has treated these figures more masterfully, nor made them more relevant to today's philosophical concerns."--Arthur Fine, Professor of Philosophy, University of Washington
"A rare combination of philosophical wisdom and mathematical expertise, Ryckman's book throws light on a remarkable period of the history of Relativity Theory, which has too long been hidden under the rubbish poured on it by unsympathetic writers. The work of Einstein's successors Hermann Weyl and Arthur Eddington and their links to the philosophy of Husserl are insightfully displayed here with a view to giving it a role in current and forthcoming theoretical physics."--Roberto Torretti, Professor Emeritus, University of Puerto Rico


Product Description
Universally recognized as bringing about a revolutionary transformation of the notions of space, time, and motion in physics, Einstein's theory of gravitation, known as "general relativity," was also a defining event for 20th century philosophy of science. During the decisive first ten years of the theory's existence, two main tendencies dominated its philosophical reception. This book is an extended argument that the path actually taken, which became logical empiricist philosophy of science, greatly contributed to the current impasse over realism, whereas new possibilities are opened in revisiting and reviving the spirit of the more sophisticated tendency, a cluster of viewpoints broadly termed transcendental idealism, and furthering its articulation. It also emerges that Einstein, while paying lip service to the emerging philosophy of logical empiricism, ended up siding de facto with the latter tendency.

Ryckman's work speaks to several groups, among them philosophers of science and historians of relativity. Equations are displayed as necessary, but Ryckman gives the non-mathematical reader enough background to understand their occurrence in the context of his wider philosophical project.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 320 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (June 14, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0195320182
• ISBN-13: 978-0195320183
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.1 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,183,557 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Extraordinary and illluminating work, June 17, 2008

By	Rudolph V. Dusek "Val Dusek" (Scarborough ME USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Ryckman's book is an excellent work full of novel insights. Ryckman single-handedly revives the non-positivist "transcendental philosophy" insights of early discussions of General Relativity Theory. Much of this suggestive insight and interpretation was lost with the triumph of the logical positivist (later logical empiricist) appropriation of Einstein's relativity theory as showing that Kant's a priori and transcendental philosophy was overthrown by Einstein. Schlick and later Hans Reichenbach became the "standard" interpreters of General Relativity Theory by the end of the 1930s. Later American philosophers of science, such as Adolph Gruenbaum and Wesley Salmon, even where not agreeing with all claims of Reichenbach, very much followed his lead and tended to dismiss the neo-Kantian and phenomenological interpretations that were developed by European thinkers concerning relativity theory.
Ryckman discusses the work on unified field theories of mathematician Herman Weyl and the physicist Arthur Eddington, as well as the philosophical interpretations of general relativity by Ernst Cassirer and Emile Meyerson among others. Ryckman's grasp of both Husserl's phenomenology and of the relevant differential geometry is superb.
His long sections on Herman Weyl are tremendously informative and illuminating. I think Ryckman's interpretations of Eddington as a "transcendental philosopher" in the traditional sense of Kant and Husserl are a bit of a stretch, however, as Eddington's philosophical excursions were very much seat of the pants. Nevertheless Ryckman persuasively discredits those, like Susan Stebbing, who ridiculed Eddington's philosophical interpretations without understanding the physics and mathematics that led him to them.
A minor but significant weakness is Ryckman's totally downplaying and dismissing the influence of the German romantic idealist Fichte on Weyl's interpretation of field theory and matter, claiming that Weyl was interested only in Fichte religious thought. In fact Erhard Scholz has made a well documented case in various articles that not only Husserl but Fichte was a very strong influence on Weyl's interpretations, and Weyl says so himself in his autobiographical reminiscences.
Overall Ryckman's work is an outstanding contribution and I hope it will revive interest in phenomenological philosophy of physics among physicists as well as Anglo-American philosophers.

1 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars "Natural" coincidence as the anomaly, July 28, 2007

By	John H. Ryskamp - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: The Reign of Relativity: Philosophy in Physics 1915-1925 (Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science) (Hardcover)

Dear Prof. Ryckman:

I've read your relativity book, and I think you came quite close on p. 60 ff, to the geometrical anomaly. I think if you go back over what you said, you will conclude that you were suggesting one exists, and you are right.

As I point out in the paper linked below, it is Einstein's notion of a "natural" coincidence, which he sets out explicitly in RELATIVITY, and by implication in the 1905 paper.

However, I think your problem identifying it is that, when you wrote the book, you were not sufficiently aware of of the set theory controversy which gave rise to another expression of what appears to be the world's oldest view of mathematics: natural mathematics (for a more extended treatment of this point of view, see P. Maddy's NATURALISM IN MATHEMATICS). I don't see Garciadiego or Grattan-Guinness cited in your book, nor is Cantor mentioned. We are in the middle of a renaissance of the historiography of set theory, and I benefited from it greatly. You will too.

Until you grasp the geometrical anomaly at the heart of the relativity simultaneity, I don't think you can understand the history fully. For example, "pratical geometry"--Einstein's term for his formulation of natural mathematics--arose from the need to avoid supposed "paradoxes" (Garciadiego is particularly illuminating on the subject of the supposed logical content of the "paradoxes"), and from the general feeling--of long standing (and by the way, you seem to feel it yourself)--that the "difference" between representation and reality had somehow to be addressed. Whether that is necessary or not, it is not achieved by "natural" coincidence--that much is, finally, obvious.

By the way, your qualms about Einstein's artful phrasing are also expressed in the Stachel and Howard book, in Sarkar's discussion of Einstein's 1905 paper on Brownian motion.

"Practical geometry" plays to internally consistent role in special or general relativity. It is not a principle, hypothesis or deduction. It is nothing. Its expression in relativity is "natural" coincidence--and that is nothing.

It should not, however, be surprising that we have been able, finally, to locate a term in relativity which we can show plays no internally consistent role in the argument (which is what was required to disprove it). As an advocate of natural mathematics, Einstein did not believe arguments were, or could be, internally consistent.

However, no one previously was able to show directly an anomaly. All commentators were able to do--and you in your book are one of them--was to express qualms about Einstein's approach. I am sure Einstein himself never was aware of the anomalous position of "natural" coincidence in relativity.

And if you do believe in natural mathematics, it doesn't matter. However, I do think it is worth noting that we can finally demonstrate that relativity is internally inconsistent.

I think Prof. Friedman left out the crucial "coordination principle"--"natural" coincidence--first, because he didn't notice it, but second, because its role is not to "coordinate": "natural" coincidence has no role AT ALL.

Where this leads, logically, is to the Pythagorean theorem. If we cannot get to general relativity because of "natural" coincidence, then the question arises once again: is the Pythagorean theorem internally consistent. I think not. I think any proof contains an impermissible "natural" coincidence. But I cannot locate it yet.

Where is it?


Cordially yours,

John Ryskamp

Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas" (May 19, 2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085