Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-26T21:28:03.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mathematical Responses to the Hole Argument: Then and Now

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2022

Clara Bradley  and
James Owen Weatherall
Clara Bradley*
Affiliation:
Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine, California, US
James Owen Weatherall
Affiliation:
Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine, California, US
*
*Corresponding author. Email: cbradle1@uci.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that several apparently distinct responses to the hole argument, all invoking formal or mathematical considerations, should be viewed as a unified “mathematical response.” We then consider and rebut two prominent critiques of the mathematical response before reflecting on what is ultimately at issue in this literature.

Information

Type
Symposia Paper
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 89 , Issue 5 , December 2022 , pp. 1223 - 1232
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This material is partially based on work produced for the project “New Directions in Philosophy of Cosmology,” funded by the John Templeton Foundation under grant 61048. We are grateful to David Mwakima and Jingyi Wu for detailed comments on a previous draft and to our co-symposiasts for discussion.

References

Arledge, Christopher, and Rynasiewicz, Robert. 2019. “On Some Recent Attempted Non-Metaphysical Dissolutions of the Hole Dilemma.” Preprint, submitted August 20, 2019. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16343/.Google Scholar
Bradley, Clara, and Owen Weatherall, James. 2020. “On Representational Redundancy, Surplus Structure, and the Hole Argument.” Foundations of Physics 50 (4):270–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brighouse, Carolyn. 1994. “Spacetime and Holes.” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 1: Contributed Papers, edited by Hull, David, Forbes, Mickey, and Burian, Richard, 117–25. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy. 1989. “The Hole Truth.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 40 (1):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curiel, Erik. 2018. “On the Existence of Spacetime Structure.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 69 (2):447–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1979. “The Inscrutability of Reference.” Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 10 (2):7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John. 1977. “Leibnizian Space-Times and Leibnizian Algebras.” In Historical and Philosophical Dimensions of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, edited by Robert, E. Butts and Hintikka, Jaako, 93–112. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Earman, John, and Norton, John. 1987. “What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Hole Story.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Samuel C. 2020. “On Representational Capacities, with an Application to General Relativity.” Foundations of Physics 50:228–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, Hans, and Manchak, J. B.. Forthcoming. “Closing the Hole Argument?” British Journal for Philosophy of Science. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/719193.Google Scholar
Hoefer, Carl. 1996. “The Metaphysics of Space-Time Substantivalism.” Journal of Philosophy 93 (1):5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, James, and Presnell, Stuart. 2020. “The Hole Argument in Homotopy Type Theory.” Foundations of Physics 50 (4):319–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malament, David B. 2012. Topics in the Foundations of General Relativity and Newtonian Gravitation Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, Tim. 1988. “The Essence of Spacetime.” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 2: Symposia and Invited Papers, edited by Fine, Arthur and Leplin, Jarrett, 82–91. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mundy, Brent. 1992. “Space-Time and Isomorphism.” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 1: Contributed Papers, edited by Hull, David, Forbes, Micky, and Okruhlik, Kathleen, 515–27. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Norton, John D. 1984. “How Einstein Found His Field Equations: 1912–1915.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 14 (2):253–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, John D. 2019. “The Hole Argument.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward, N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University Press. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/spacetime-holearg/.Google Scholar
Pooley, Oliver. 2013. “Substantivalist and Relationalist Approaches to Spacetime.” In Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, edited by Batterman, Robert, 522–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pooley, Oliver, and Read, James. Forthcoming. “On the Mathematics and Metaphysics of the Hole Argument.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1981. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, Willard V. 1969. “Ontological Relativity.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, edited by Kim, Jaegwon and Sosa, Ernest, 114–38. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Bryan W. 2020. “Regarding ‘Leibniz Equivalence.’” Foundations of Physics 50 (4):250–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Bryan W., and Owen Weatherall, James. 2020. “New Perspectives on the Hole Argument.” Foundations of Physics 50 (4):217–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynasiewicz, Robert. 1996. “Is There a Syntactic Solution to the Hole Problem?” Philosophy of Science 63 (3):S55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shulman, Michael. 2017. “Homotopy Type Theory: A Synthetic Approach to Higher Equalities.” In Categories for the Working Philosopher, edited by Landry, Elaine, 36–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stachel, John. 1989. “Einstein’s Search for General Covariance, 1912–1915.” In Einstein and the History of General Relativity, edited by Howard, Don and Stachel, John, 62–100. Boston: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
Stein, Howard. 1977. “Some Philosophical Prehistory of General Relativity.” In Foundations of Space-Time Theories, edited by Earman, John, Glymour, Clark, and Stachel, John, 3–49. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Univalent Foundations Program. 2013. Homotopy Type Theory: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics. Princeton: Univalent Foundations Program at the Institute for Advanced Study.Google Scholar
Weatherall, James Owen. 2018. “Regarding the ‘Hole Argument.’” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (2):329–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, James Owen. 2020. “Some Philosophical Prehistory of the (Earman–Norton) Hole Argument.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 70:79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar