Two Dogmas of Dynamicism

TL;DR

This paper critically examines two widely accepted dogmas in the dynamical approach to spacetime in general relativity, questioning assumptions about matter behavior and the sufficiency of the Strong Equivalence Principle.

Contribution

It offers a critical analysis of foundational assumptions in the dynamical approach and discusses the role of spacetime functionalism in understanding spacetime-matter relations.

Findings

Challenges the idea that spacetime geometry has no implications for matter behavior

Argues that the Strong Equivalence Principle alone does not guarantee matter is adapted to spacetime

Highlights the importance of spacetime functionalism in the debate

Abstract

I critically discuss two dogmas of the "dynamical approach" to spacetime in general relativity, as advanced by Harvey Brown [Physical Relativity (2005) Oxford:Oxford University Press] and collaborators. The first dogma is that positing a "spacetime geometry" has no implications for the behavior of matter. The second dogma is that postulating the "Strong Equivalence Principle" suffices to ensure that matter is "adapted" to spacetime geometry. I conclude by discussing "spacetime functionalism". The discussion is presented in reaction to and sympathy with recent work by James Read ["Explanation, geometry, and conspiracy in relativity theory"(20??) Thinking about Spacetime. Boston: Birkauser].