Newton and Leibniz on Absolute Space and Time

The debate between proponents of absolutist and relativist

conceptions of space and time has been continuing for hundreds of years,
largely due to the fact that such a problem cannot be solved through simple
and direct experimentation. Indeed, given our earthly limitations it would be
impossible to observe the behavior of anything existing in complete isolation
from the rest of the universe. Nonetheless, through innovations in the
development of observational apparatus, we have been able to postulate
reasons for believing in either absolute or relative space and time based on
real observations of the physical universe. While the relationship between
these physical observations and the nature of space and time are
scientifically meritorious, it is more philosophically interesting to consider
how arguments on the subject were supported through mostly a
priori reasoning. By analyzing the arguments made between Newton and
Leibniz on the subject and comparing their conclusions to contemporary
views of space and time, we can gain insight into the kind of philosophical
reasoning that has been guiding scientific discovery for centuries.
In the Principles of Natural Philosophy, Newton provided support for an
absolutist conception of space. According to the absolutist view, space is
something that exists independently of the spatial relations between objects,
implying that space and time are things that have existed even before the
universe came into existence. This view of space was useful to Newton

because it allowed him to effectively distinguish between absolute and

relative motion. To illustrate the difference between these types of motion,
consider the example of two cars moving at the exact same velocity down a
straight road. Though the cars would appear stationary to one another, a
bystander on the street would most certainly view the cars as moving either
towards or away from him. Likewise, Newton believed that although the
motion of objects could be defined relative to one another they must also
move absolutely in relation to space itself. Space in Newton's view possesses
qualities similar to a Cartesian graph, where a change in position of one
object would result in the change of the spatial 'coordinates' of that object, a
property that all objects in the universe would necessarily share.
Newton's absolutist view was empirically supported by little more than
the fact that absolute and relative motion are observable in the physical
world. His postulates on the nature of space therefore provoked Gottfried
Leibniz to develop his own arguments against the absolutist view and instead
argue for a relativist conception of space. According to the relativist view,
space is not something that exists independently of the spatial relations
between objects, but is instead composed of the relations themselves.
Though Leibniz provided several philosophical and theological arguments
against the absolutist view, the argument involving the principle of the
identity of indiscernibles (PII) is perhaps the most convincing.
According to PII, if two objects are determined to be indiscernible then
that they are also necessarily identical. In order to be indiscernible, both

objects must have the same attributes and no difference can be found
between them. Therefore, any objects that are determined distinct from one
another must differ in at least one of their attributes. The validity of this
principle forms the basis of Leibniz's argument, in which he uses thought
experiments to show that Newton's absolutist conception runs contrary to it.
In his first thought experiment, Leibniz assumes the truth of absolute
space and asks us to consider two separate but compositionally identical
universes. In the first universe, all of the objects occupy a specific position in
absolute space. In the second universe, all of the objects occupy a position 2
miles away from their respective absolute positions in the first universe.
According to Leibniz, there would be no way to distinguish these universes
from one another, since Newton himself had stated that it is not possible to
determine the position of an object in relation to absolute space. Therefore,
PII states that both universes would be considered indiscernible and
therefore necessarily identical.
Leibniz used a similar thought experiment to show that time is a
relative property as well. In this case, he considered two compositionally
identical universes in which all of the objects have a certain absolute velocity
with respect to absolute space. If the velocity of all of the objects in one
universe were increased by a constant amount in a specific direction, then
both universes would again be indiscernible, since it is not possible to
measure velocity relative to absolute space. The velocity of an object can

only be observed and determined relative to another object. Therefore it is

clear that these universes would also be identical to one another.
The philosophical significance of the two hypothetical universes being
identical comes from the conclusion that the notion of absolute space makes
no difference to our ability to observe natural phenomena both local and
celestial. The absolutist view implies that there would be a difference
between compositionally identical universes occupying different positions in
absolute space, but Leibniz shows through PII that these differences would
be impossible to detect. Given the incompatibility of PII with the
consequences of absolute space and time, Leibniz concludes that absolute
space and time are not plausible concepts.
Despite Leibniz's claims, Newton believed that absolute space does in
fact make a difference to our observational faculties. Newton aimed to
support this view through his famous 'Bucket' thought experiment, in which
he asks us to consider a simple bucket filled with water and attached to a
rope. The rope is twisted and then released, initially causing the bucket to
spin and eventually causing the water to spin along with it. If we assume the
vantage point of an extremely small person sitting on the edge of the
spinning bucket, we will observe the water eventually coming to rest, while
still spinning with respect to the buckets surroundings. Although the water in
the spinning bucket will appear at rest to the person sitting on the edge of
the bucket, experience shows that it will also assume a concave shape due
to its rotation with respect to the surrounding environment. Since it is

rotational motion that is causing the surface of the water to assume this
concave shape, and motion must always occur relative to some other object,
Newton claims that the change in shape of the waters surface is accounted
for by the rotation of the water with respect to absolute space. This
rotational conformation occurs even though the water does not appear to be
rotating from the perspective of the man sitting on the edge of the bucket.
Newton therefore argued that absolute space does indeed make a difference
to our ability to observe the universe.
One obvious objection to Newton's argument is that although the water
must be rotating relative to some external object, there seems to be no
reason to claim outright that it would be rotating with respect to absolute
space. One could very well claim that the object is moving with respect to
surface of the earth, other bodies in space, or even the person conducting
the experiment. Newton's response to this objection is to claim that in the
absence of any other objects in the universe, the curved surface of the water
could not be explained by anything other than rotation relative to absolute
space. According to Newton, absolute space helps us account for the effects
of inertia or accelerated motion since a universe containing only that
accelerating object would need something for the acceleration to occur
relative to.
Newton's rebuttal does not seem to sufficiently refute Leibniz's
objections to absolute space. This is because Newton's argument relies on
the assumption that the effects of inertia would manifest in a universe

without matter. In the context of the bucket, Newton assumes that the
surface of the water would necessarily become concave though there is no
empirical basis for such an assumption. Conversely, the only real significant
assumption made by Leibniz is the truth of PII, which is much more intuitively
justified than the assumption made by Newton. Hence, it is clear that
Newton's argument does not prove that absolute space exists, but rather
begs the question as to how inertial effects are accounted for in the
relativistic picture of space and time. This question still lives on, partially due
to the fact that it evades explanation through direct experimentation.
Nonetheless, scientific progress in the field of cosmology and theoretical
physics has provided some insight into the debate between absolute and
relative space.
Though the implications of modern scientific theories on the nature of
space and time are considerably beyond the scope of this paper, it is
generally accepted that Newton's conception of absolute space was
inaccurate and that relativistic factors are in play when considering the
motion of heavenly bodies. Einsteins contributions to relativity and Brill &
Cohen's elucidation of the Lense-Thirring effect solidify the idea of relative
space and time as the more viable theory than the absolute. Although we will
always be limited by the fact that direct experimentation on the effects of
empty space are an impossibility, we are nonetheless coming closer to
understanding the true nature of space. Therefore, it is clear that
argumentation based on a priori reasoning has been extremely useful in

guiding the thought process that led to further scientific discovery, and will
continue serve as a strong basis from which our understanding of universe
becomes more complete.

Works Cited
Forrest, Peter. "The Identity of Indiscernibles." Stanford University. Stanford
University, 31 July 1996. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
Huggett, Nick. "Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion."
Stanford University. Stanford University, 11 Aug. 2006. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
Lefevre, Wolfgang. Between Leibniz, Newton, and Kant: Philosophy and
Science in the Eighteenth Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2001. Print.
"Newton's Bucket." Newton's Bucket. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.