Abstract
AbstractIn a recent article, Halvorson and Manchak (Br J Philos Sci, Forthcoming) claim that there is no basis for the Hole Argument, because (in a certain sense) hole isometries are unique. This raises two important questions: (a) does their argument succeed?; (b) how does this formalist response to the Hole Argument relate to other recent responses to the Hole Argument in the same tradition—in particular, that of Weatherall (Br J Philos Sci 69(2):329–350, 2018)? In this article, ad (a), we argue that Halvorson and Manchak’s claim does not go through; ad (b), we argue that although one prima facie plausible reading would see Halvorson and Manchak as filling an important hole (no pun intended) in Weatherall’s argument, in fact this reading is implausible; there is no need to supplement Weatherall’s work with Halvorson and Manchak’s results.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Physics and Astronomy,History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy
Reference28 articles.
1. Baker, D.J.: Knox’s inertial spacetime functionalism (and a better alternative). Synthese 199(2), 277–298 (2021)
2. Bradley, C., Owen, J.: Weatherall. Mathematical responses to the hole argument: then and now. Philos. Sci. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2022.58
3. Cheng, B., Read, J.: Shifts and reference. In: Vassallo, A. (ed.) The Foundations of Spacetime Physics: Philosophical Perspectives. Routledge, London (2022)
4. Dasgupta, S.: The bare necessities. Philos. Perspect. 25, 115–160 (2011)
5. Methodology and Philosophy of Science;J Earman,1977