Forthcoming
Articles

The Mirror Argument and the Theory of the Best Systems of Laws

PDF (Português (Brasil))
  • Pedro Merlussi,
  • Tobias Marconde
Pedro Merlussi
Programa de Pós-graduação em Filosofia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Tobias Marconde
Programa de Pós-graduação em Filosofia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e1307

Published 2026-09-12

Keywords

  • Laws of Nature,
  • Theory of the Best Systems of Laws,
  • Humeanism,
  • Metaphysics of Science
  • Leis da natureza,
  • Teoria dos melhores sistemas de leis,
  • Humianismo,
  • Metafísica da ciência

How to Cite

Merlussi, P., & Marconde, T. (2026). The Mirror Argument and the Theory of the Best Systems of Laws. Análisis Filosófico. https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e1307
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Are there laws of nature, and if so, what are they? According to the influential theory of Frank Ramsey and David Lewis, laws do exist and are generalizations that appear as axioms in deductive systems that best combine simplicity and strength. Despite its influence, one of the main criticisms the theory faces is its supposed inability to show how laws “support” counterfactual conditionals. John Carroll presented one of the most precise and influential formulations of this objection through his Mirror Argument. In this article, we present a response to the Mirror Argument that remains unexplored in the literature; our goal is to show that the Ramsey-Lewis theory can explain how laws support counterfactuals if laws are understood as ceteris paribus.

PDF (Português (Brasil))

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1983). What is a law of nature. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Beebee, H. (2000). The nongoverning conception of laws of nature. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 61(3), 571-594. https://doi.org/10.2307/2653613
  3. Bird, A. (2005). The dispositionalist conception of laws. Foundations of Science, 10, 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-004-5259-9
  4. Bird, A. (2007). Nature’s metaphysics: Laws and properties. Oxford University Press.
  5. Borge, B. (2020). Realismo científico y leyes de la naturaleza: De la filosofía general de la ciencia a la metafísica de la ciencia. Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, 20(40), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.18270/rcfc.v20i40.3229
  6. Carroll, J. W. (1994). Laws of nature. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Cartwright, N. (1987). Philosophical problems of quantum theory: The response of American physicists. Em L. Krüger, G. Gigerenzer, & M. Morgan (Eds.), The probabilistic revolution (pp. 417-435). Bradford Books.
  8. Cartwright, N. (2019). Nature, the artful modeler: Lectures on laws, science, how nature arranges the world and how we can arrange it better. Open Court.
  9. Cartwright, N., & Merlussi, P. (2018). Are laws of nature consistent with contingency? Em W. Ott & L. Patton (Eds.), Laws of nature (pp. 221-244). Oxford University Press.
  10. Cohen, J., & Callender, C. (2009). A better best systems account of lawhood. Philosophical Studies, 145, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9389-3
  11. Demarest, H. (2017). Powerful properties, powerless laws. Em J. Jacobs (Ed.), Putting powers to work: Causal powers in contemporary metaphysics (pp. 38-53). Oxford University Press.
  12. Earman, J. (1978). The universality of laws. Philosophy of Science, 45(2), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1086/288795
  13. Earman, J. (1986). A primer on determinism. Reidel.
  14. Ellis, B. (2002). The philosophy of nature. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  15. Gendler, T., & Hawthorne J. (2002). Conceivability and possibility. Claredon Press.
  16. Hermes, C. (2004). Two concepts of nomic accessibility. Southwest Philosophy Review, 20(2), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.5840/swphilreview200420231
  17. Hicks, M. T., & van Elswyk, P. (2015). Humean laws and circular explanation. Philosophical Studies, 172(2), 433-443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0310-3
  18. Kimpton-Nye, S. (2017). Humean laws in an unHumean world. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 3(2), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2017.19
  19. Lange, M. (2000). Natural laws in scientific practice. Oxford University Press
  20. Lange, M. (2009). Laws and lawmakers: Science, metaphysics, and the laws of nature. Oxford University Press.
  21. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press.
  22. Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13(4), 455-476. https://doi.org/10.2307/2215339
  23. Lewis, D. (1986). Philosophical Papers II. Oxford University Press.
  24. Loewer, B. (1996). Humean supervenience. Philosophical Topics, 24(1), 101-127. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43154224
  25. Loewer, B. (2012). Two accounts of laws and time. Philosophical Studies, 160(1), 115-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9911-x
  26. Marshall, D. (2015). Humean laws and explanation. Philosophical Studies, 172(12), 3145-3165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0462-9
  27. Massimi, M. (2018). A perspectivalist better best system account of lawhood. Em W. Ott & L. Patton (Eds.), Laws of nature (pp. 139-157). Oxford University Press.
  28. Merlussi, P. (2016). Determinism, laws of nature and the consequence argument. Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia, 39(1), 74-95. https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8646148
  29. Merlussi, P. (2022). Revisiting McKay and Johnson’s counterexample to (β). Philosophical Explorations, 25(2), 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2022.2034917
  30. Merlussi, P. (2024). The consequence argument and the possibility of the laws of nature being violated. Philosophia, 52, 247-259.
  31. Quine, W. V. O. (1970). Philosophy of logic. Harvard University Press.
  32. Ramsey, F. P. (1978). Foundations: Essays in philosophy, logic, mathematics and economics. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  33. Schrenk, M. (2014). Better best systems and the issue of CP-laws. Erkenntnis, 79(Suppl. 10), 1787-1799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9642-9
  34. Soto, C. (2024). Leyes de la naturaleza: Historia, filosofía y ciencias. Tecnos.
  35. Tooley, M. (1977). The nature of law. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7(4), 667-698. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1977.10716190
  36. van Fraassen, B. C. (1989). Laws and symmetry. Clarendon.