Editing Philosophy of space and time (section)

===Leibniz and Newton<!--linked from 'Adolf Grünbaum'-->===
The great debate between defining notions of space and time as real objects themselves (absolute), or mere orderings upon actual objects ([[relationalism|relational]]), began between physicists [[Isaac Newton]] (via his spokesman, Samuel Clarke) and [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Gottfried Leibniz]] in the papers of the [[Leibniz–Clarke correspondence]].

Arguing against the absolutist position, Leibniz offers a number of [[thought experiment]]s with the purpose of showing that there is contradiction in assuming the existence of facts such as absolute location and velocity. These arguments trade heavily on two principles central to his philosophy: the [[principle of sufficient reason]] and the [[identity of indiscernibles]]. The principle of sufficient reason holds that for every fact, there is a reason that is sufficient to explain what and why it is the way it is and not otherwise. The identity of indiscernibles states that if there is no way of telling two entities apart, then they are one and the same thing.

The example Leibniz uses involves two proposed universes situated in absolute space. The only discernible difference between them is that the latter is positioned five feet to the left of the first. The example is only possible if such a thing as absolute space exists. Such a situation, however, is not possible, according to Leibniz, for if it were, a universe's position in absolute space would have no sufficient reason, as it might very well have been anywhere else. Therefore, it contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, and there could exist two distinct universes that were in all ways indiscernible, thus contradicting the identity of indiscernibles.

Standing out in Clarke's (and Newton's) response to Leibniz's arguments is the [[bucket argument]]: Water in a bucket, hung from a rope and set to spin, will start with a flat surface. As the water begins to spin in the bucket, the surface of the water will become concave. If the bucket is stopped, the water will continue to spin, and while the spin continues, the surface will remain concave. The concave surface is apparently not the result of the interaction of the bucket and the water, since the surface is flat when the bucket first starts to spin, it becomes concave as the water starts to spin, and it remains concave as the bucket stops.

In this response, Clarke argues for the necessity of the existence of [[absolute space]] to account for phenomena like rotation and acceleration that cannot be accounted for on a purely [[relationalism|relationalist account]]. Clarke argues that since the curvature of the water occurs in the rotating bucket as well as in the stationary bucket containing spinning water, it can only be explained by stating that the water is rotating in relation to the presence of some third thing—absolute space.

Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For almost two centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.