Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T03:27:35.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spacetime and Holes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Carolyn Brighouse
Carolyn Brighouse*
Affiliation:
Occidental College and University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Here I describe and defend a version of space-time substantivalism. My account is meant partly as a reply to an argument against a particular substantivalist position that can be found both in John Earman and John Norton's “What price spacetime substantivalism? The hole story”, and Earman's World Enough and Spacetime. Their argument, the Hole Argument, purports to show that substantivalism leads to a radical form of indeterminism within a class of theories that includes our best theory of spacetime, namely, General Relativity (GTR). The hole argument contends that the substantivalist must view diffeomorphic models of a spacetime theory as representing genuinely distinct physical situations. It is this contention I argue against.

The version of substantivalism I present, although not a traditional account, incorporates the important features of traditional substantivalist views.

Type
Part III. Spacetime and Related Matters
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1994 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1994 , 1994 , pp. 117 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank Hartry Field, Frank Amtzenius, John Norton, Seth Crook, Gordon Belot and Tom Cuda for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

References

Butterfield, J. (1989), “The Hole Truth.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (1986), A Primer on Determinism. Dordrecht: D.ReidelCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (1989), World Enough and Spacetime. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. and Norton, J. (1987), “What Price Spacetime substantivalism? The hole story.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38:515–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, H. (1989), Realism, Mathematics and Modality. Oxford:B.BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Field, H. (1980), Science Without Numbers Oxford:B.BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Horwich, P. (1978), “On the Existence of Times, Space and Space-Times” Nous 12:396–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986), On the Plurality of Worlds Oxford:B.BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, T (1988), “The Essence of Spacetime.” Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association Vol.2:82–91Google Scholar
Norton, J. (1988), “The Hole Argument.” Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Vol.2:56–64Google Scholar