Closing the Hole Argument.

The hole argument purportedly shows that spacetime substantivalism implies a pernicious form of indeterminism. Here we attempt to answer the question: what is the mathematical fact that is supposed to underwrite the hole argument? We identify two relevant mathematical claims. The first claim is triv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Vol. 76; no. 2; pp. 295 - 319
Autores principales: Halvorson, Hans, Manchak, J. B.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: University of Chicago Press Jun2025
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=185947259&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 185947259
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00070882
        BPL
      jtl: British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
      issn: 00070882
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2025
      vid: 76
      iid: 2
      pid: 415
      pub: University of Chicago Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        185947259
        10.1086/719193
      ppf: 295
      ppct: 24
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Closing the Hole Argument.
      aug:
        au:
          Halvorson, Hans
          Manchak, J. B.
        affil:
          Department of Philosophy. Princeton University. Princeton, NJ, USA.
          Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science. University of California at Irvine. Irvine, CA, USA.
      su:
        Spacetime
        Free will & determinism
        Argument
      sug:
        subj:
          Spacetime
          Free will & determinism
          Argument
      ab: The hole argument purportedly shows that spacetime substantivalism implies a pernicious form of indeterminism. Here we attempt to answer the question: what is the mathematical fact that is supposed to underwrite the hole argument? We identify two relevant mathematical claims. The first claim is trivially true, and Weatherall has convincingly argued that it cannot support the hole argument. The second claim would support the hole argument, but we prove that it is false. Therefore, there is no basis for the hole argument.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2025
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N