Works › Relativity: The Special and General Theory
Work #115

Relativity: The Special and General Theory

Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie — Einstein's popular exposition of his two theories

Albert Einstein · 1916 (German); first English 1920 · German · Popular scientific exposition

Tradition: Modern physics / philosophical-scientific worldview

Space and time are observer-relative; gravity is curvature of spacetime — Newtonian absolute space dissolved

Relativity is Einstein's own popular exposition of special relativity (1905) and general relativity (completed 1915, published in finished form 1916). Across three parts (special relativity, general relativity, considerations on the universe as a whole), Einstein develops the theories non-technically: special relativity's rejection of absolute simultaneity and Newtonian absolute space-and-time; general relativity's reconception of gravity as curvature of spacetime produced by mass-energy. The work is the most accessible introduction to the philosophical-cosmological revolution that overturned Newton's Principia. It has shaped twentieth- and twenty-first-century philosophy of physics (Reichenbach, Grünbaum, Earman), philosophy of time, and the broader modern scientific worldview.

Author

Editions cited

  • Relativity: The Special and General Theory (Robert W. Lawson, Methuen, 1920; multiple reprints)
  • Relativity (Crown reprint, 2010, with introduction by Roger Penrose)
Compare this work

School Embodiments

Naturalism · 15%
Eternalism · 20%
Relationalism · 15%
Realism · 15%
Spinozist Pantheism · 10%
Kantian Transcendental Idealism · 5%
Critical Realism · 10%
Analytic Metaphysics / Logical Atomism · 10%
Naturalism 15%

Einstein's general relativity is one of the principal twentieth-century texts of philosophical naturalism — the universe is mathematically and empirically intelligible without theological supplement.

"The eternally incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility." (Einstein, "Physics and Reality" 1936, formula consonant with the book)
Eternalism 20%

Special relativity's rejection of absolute simultaneity has been read by philosophers of time as foundational for the block-universe eternalist view of time.

"There is no absolute simultaneity." (Relativity, paraphrasing the special-relativity core)
Relationalism 15%

General relativity has been read by relationalist philosophers of physics (Earman, Rovelli) as vindicating Leibniz against Newton: spacetime is dynamically related to matter rather than absolutely independent.

"Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve." (Wheeler's paraphrase of GR; canonical in modern popularisations)
Realism 15%

Einstein was a robust scientific realist — spacetime curvature is real, the universe is real and intelligible, scientific theory tracks real features of nature.

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists." (Einstein, 1929 — formula consistent with his scientific realism)
Spinozist Pantheism 10%

Einstein's religion-of-cosmic-order is recognisably Spinozistic; he said so repeatedly, and the Relativity's philosophical commitments are consonant.

"I do not believe in a personal God." (Einstein, 1947 — consonant with the broader philosophical framework)
Kantian Transcendental Idealism 5%

Reichenbach and the logical empiricists read Einstein's relativity as the empirical overcoming of Kantian synthetic a priori claims about Newtonian space and time.

"The geometry of spacetime depends on the distribution of matter." (Relativity, GR core)
Critical Realism 10%

General relativity is one of the paradigm cases for critical-realist philosophy of science: real causal structures (spacetime curvature) producing real empirical phenomena (gravitational lensing, time dilation).

"The general theory of relativity has, on the one hand, increased the scope of empirical investigation." (Relativity, Appendix V)
Analytic Metaphysics / Logical Atomism 10%

Twentieth-century analytic philosophy of physics (Earman, Maudlin, Wallace) engages general relativity continuously as a central metaphysical resource.

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live." (Einstein — consonant with the spacetime-relational reading of Relativity)

Internal Tensions

Einstein's lifelong resistance to quantum mechanics (the EPR paradox, the "God does not play dice" remark) means that Relativity captures only part of twentieth-century physics. The integration of GR with quantum mechanics remains open. Einstein himself expected a deeper unified theory; the search continues.

⧖

I. Time

Special relativity: time is observer-relative. General relativity: spacetime is dynamically curved. Relational ontological status — spacetime is real but bound up with matter-energy.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Grain: Continuous Freedom: Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

Curved by matter-energy according to GR. Cosmological models discuss both finite (closed) and infinite (open/flat) universes — extent is genuinely open empirically.

Attributes
Extent: Both Ontological Status: Relational Curvature: Curved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◉

III. Matter

Real, substantival, conserved (mass-energy conservation). E=mc² shows matter and energy as interconvertible.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◎

IV. Observer

The observer is real, embodied, finite — and the simultaneity of events depends on the observer's reference frame. No metaphysical agency in the working theory.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Immediate Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Cosmic-ordering
⚡

V. Energy

Conserved. Mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²) is one of the foundational equations.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible
⧉

VI. Information

Real informational structure of spacetime curvature. Personal information not conserved across death in the working framework.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

Albert Einstein

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

97%
Aristotle
29/30
92%
Socrates
23/25
91%
Albert Einstein
31/34
91%
Galen
30/33
90%
Al-Farabi
27/30
90%
Panaetius
27/30

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

75%
Islamic Philosophy / Falsafa
21/26
75%
Stoicism
21/26
72%
Hylomorphism
21/26
71%
Process Philosophy
19/26
66%
Deep Ecology
18/26
64%
Milesian School
19/26
64%
Latin Averroism
18/26
64%
Deism
20/26

How Relativity: The Special and General Theory resolves each dilemma

51 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 3 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 6 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
On this view, the future is determined and you are genuinely choosing. Those aren't contradictory because the determination runs through you rather than around you: your reasoning, deliberation, and assent are the way the determined outcome gets settled. Choice is what it feels like from …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
On this view, the addict is acting within a determined order but is genuinely acting — making decisions, endorsing or resisting urges, seeking or refusing help. Responsibility attaches not because some uncaused choice happened, but because the addict is the kind of agent through which …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
On this view, what makes a being responsible is not indeterminism but the kind of process the being is. An AI that deliberates, considers consequences, can be given reasons, and modifies its behaviour on reflection is doing what responsible agency is, even if its underlying …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers. (10%) · Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
6 mainstream positions
Is the universe running out of usable energy? Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. 47% Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so? Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. 47% Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide? Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. 47% How much weight do future people deserve? Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet. 32% Is regret rational? The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer. 32% Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them? Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future. 32%
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is the world created from nothing? Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. 55% Is the physical world fully real? Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. 55% Does matter have intrinsic moral standing? Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. 55% What is money? Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. 54% What is a nation? A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. 54% What makes someone male or female? Sex is a real biological kind with given content. 54% Should we edit the human germline? Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. 54%
Observer · 37 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. 44% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. 44% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. 44% What happens to "you" when you die? A soul continues into another mode of being. 37% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for. 37% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence. 37% What makes someone the same person over time? You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. 36% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. 36% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. 36% Are the dead morally present to the living? The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence. 35% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering. 33% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach. 33% Does prayer change God's mind? God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted. 33% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer. 30% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have. 29% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person. 29% Does history have a direction or meaning? — — How is knowledge of reality produced? — — Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? — — Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? — — What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? — — Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? — —
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets? Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone. 51% Does deleting your data online destroy something real? Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys. 51% Could the dead, in principle, be brought back? The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible. 51% Is forgiveness ontologically possible? The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away. 51%
← #114 On Certainty All Works #116 Physics and Philosophy →