Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


International Journal for Ontology and Metaphysics

Managing Editor: Koridze, Georg

Ed. by Hüntelmann, Rafael / Meixner, Uwe / Tegtmeier, Erwin

Editorial Board: Addis, Laird / Davies, Brian / Hochberg, Herbert / Johansson, Ingvar / Kanzian, Christian / Klima, Gyula / Koons, Robert C / Künne, Wolfgang / Löffler, Winfried / Mulligan, Kevin / Nef, Frederic / Oaklander, Nathan / Oderberg, David / Orilia, Francesco / Plantinga, Alvin / Potrc, Matjaz / Rapp, Christof / Reicher-Marek, Maria Elisabeth / Schantz, Richard / Scholz, Oliver R. / Seibt, Johanna / Simons, Peter / Smith, Barry / Stoecker, Ralf / Strobach, Niko / Trettin, Käthe / Wachter, Daniel

CiteScore 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.257
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.369

See all formats and pricing
More options …

The “Constant” Threat to the Dispositional Essentialist Conception of Laws

Vassilios Livanios
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Philosophy and History of Science, University of Athens, Xanthou 62, 16674 Glyfada, Greece
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2014-02-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2014-0009


According to the dispositional essentialist account of laws of nature, the latter express the dispositional nature of fundamental natural properties. In this paper I discuss the difficulty that the existence of fundamental constants of nature raises for that account. To this end, I examine a relevant argument against the account and describe how an advocate of the dispositionalist conception may try to undermine it by raising objections to its premises. Then I discuss those objections and show that eventually all fail. I finally conclude that the existence of the fundamental constants remains a “constant” threat to the dispositional essentialist conception of laws.

Keywords: fundamental constants; dispositional essentialist conception of laws; inflation theory; multiverse


  • Adams, F. 2008. “Stars in Other Universes: Stellar Structure with Different Fundamental Constants.” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 08:0810.Google Scholar

  • Armstrong, D. M. 1997. A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Barrow, J. 2002. The Constants of Nature: From Alpha to Omega-the Numbers That Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

  • Barrow, J., and F. Tipler. 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Bird, A. 2002. “On Whether Some Laws Are Necessary.” Analysis 62.3:257–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bird, A. 2007. Nature’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Bird, A. 2012. “Monistic Dispositional Essentialism.” In Properties, Powers and Structures, edited by A. Bird, B. Ellis, and H. Sankey, 35–41. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Carr, B. (ed.).2007. Universe or Multiverse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cohen-Tannoutji, G. 2009. “Universal Constants, Standard Models and Fundamental Metrology.” European Physical Journal (Special Topics) 172:5–24.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Duff, M. J. 2004. “Comment on the Time-Variation of Fundamental Constants.” arXiv:hep-th/0208093v3 (11 July 2004).Google Scholar

  • Duff, M. J., L. B. Okun, and G. Veneziano. 2002. “Trialogue on the Number of Fundamental Constants.” Journal of High Energy Physics 03(2002):023. Also in arXiv:physics/0110060v2 [physics.class-ph] (28 Feb 2002).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ellis, G. F. R. 1979. “The Homogeneity of the Universe.” General Relativity and Gravitation 11(4):281–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ellis, B. 2005. “Katzav on the Limitations of Dispositionalism.” Analysis 65(1):90–2.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guth, A. 1981. “Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problem.” Physical Review D 23:347–56.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harnik, R., G. Kribs, and G. Perez. 2006. “A Universe without Weak Interaction.” Physical Review D 74(3):035006.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Katzav, J. 2004. “Dispositions and the Principle of Least Action.” Analysis 64(3):206–14.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Levy-Leblond, J. M. 1979. “The Importance of Being (a) Constant.” In Problems in the Foundations of Physics, edited by G. Torraldi, 237. Enrico Fermi School LXXII, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ.Google Scholar

  • Linde, A. D. 1986. “Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe.” Physics Letters B 175(4):395–400.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Livanios, V. 2008. “Bird and the Dispositional Essentialist Account of Spatiotemporal Relations.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 39(2):383–94.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Livanios, V. 2010. “Symmetries, Dispositions and Essences.” Philosophical Studies 148(2):295–305.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Martin, C. B. 2008. The Mind in Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Misner, C., K. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler. 1973. Gravitation. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar

  • Moffat, J. W. 2002. “Comment on the Variation of Fundamental Constants.” arXiv: hep-th/0208109v2 (7 Nov 2002).Google Scholar

  • Rees, M. 1999. Just Six Numbers. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Smolin, L. 1997. The Life of the Cosmos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Smolin, L. 2006. The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar

  • Stenger, V. 2004. “Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Us?” In Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, edited by M. Young and T. Edis, 172–84. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tegmark, M., A. Aguirre, M. J. Rees, and F. Wilczek. 2006. “Dimensionless Constants, Cosmology, and Other Dark Matters.” Physical Review D 73(2):023505.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Uzan, J. P. 2002. “The Fundamental Constants and Their Variation: Observational Status and Theoretical Motivations.” Reviews of Modern Physics 75(2):403–55. Also in arXiv:hep-ph/0205340v1(30 May 2002).Google Scholar

  • Uzan, J. P., and B. Leclercq. 2008. The Natural Laws of the Universe: Understanding Fundamental Constants. Chichester, UK: Praxis Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Vilenkin, A. 1983. “Birth of Inflationary Universes.” Physical Review D 27:2848–55.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weinberg, S. 1992. Dreams of a Final Theory. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar

  • Weinberg, S., H. B. Nielsen, and J. G. Taylor. 1983. “Overview of Theoretical Prospects for Understanding the Values of Fundamental Constants.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 310:249–52.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wheeler, J. A. 1974. “Beyond the End of Time.” In Black Holes, Gravitational Waves and Cosmology, edited by M. Rees, R. Ruffini, and A. J. Wheeler. New York: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar

  • Wilczek, F. 2007. “Fundamental Constants.” arXiv: 0708.4361v1 [hep-ph] (31 Aug 2007).Google Scholar

  • Zwiebach, B. 2009. A First Course in String Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2014-02-01

Published in Print: 2014-04-01

Citation Information: Metaphysica, Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 129–155, ISSN (Online) 1874-6373, ISSN (Print) 1437-2053, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2014-0009.

Export Citation

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Ben Page
Res Philosophica, 2018, Volume 95, Number 4, Page 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in