The transcendental idealist underpinnings of the geometrized field physics proposed by Hermann Weyl and by Arthur Eddington remained largely unrecognized. Èmile Meyerson was a notable exception. It is argued that Meyerson came closest to comprehending the epistemological motivations of Weyl and Eddington yet was hindered by his failure to understand how transcendental idealism could be supported in the absence of a literal interpretation of the Transcendental Aesthetic. While geometrical unification in physics ostensibly supports a structural realism, the theories of Weyl and Eddington, to...

The transcendental idealist underpinnings of the geometrized field physics proposed by Hermann Weyl and by Arthur Eddington remained largely unrecognized. Èmile Meyerson was a notable exception. It is argued that Meyerson came closest to comprehending the epistemological motivations of Weyl and Eddington yet was hindered by his failure to understand how transcendental idealism could be supported in the absence of a literal interpretation of the Transcendental Aesthetic. While geometrical unification in physics ostensibly supports a structural realism, the theories of Weyl and Eddington, to the contrary, are explicit attempts to show how the concept of physical object has been transformed within the general theory of relativity.